Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Ron Paul on CNN / Wolf Blitzer 10/17/11 - Introducing Plan to Restore America

Why the US was downgraded...

U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

Annual family income: $21,700.
Money the family spent: $38,200.
New debt on the credit card: $16,500.
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Total budget cuts: $385.

Does this clarify it ?

The Government’s Tactical Assault on our Liberties

by Doug Book
Two centuries ago, the Founders feared a strong,  centralized federal government would establish a standing army, an irresistible force capable of crushing those rights of individual liberty which had been so carefully and deliberately crafted into the Constitution. Today that fear has been realized.

Its fulfillment came less through the American military than in the increasingly disturbing form of paramilitary units and heavily equipped tactical assault teams, which exist everywhere frm bureaucracies within the federal government to small town police departments.

From 300 a year during the 1970s, Special Weapons Assault Team raids have exploded to more than 50,000 a year over the past decade,  the overwhelming majority for the purpose of serving of warrants to non-violent offenders, usually drug-related crimes.

The “War on Drugs,” which provided the original excuse for the nationwide formation of SWAT teams and the use of armored vehicles or paramilitary tactics in small localities, has now evolved into the more menacing “War on Terror.”

But is this a war on drug dealers and terrorists or a war on the American people?  Consider a few recent occurrences.

In Waco, Texas, 80 lives were taken by masked SWAT team members driving armored vehicles in what one writer properly called an  “ATF publicity stunt gone awry.”

Three years ago, more than 400 children were wrenched from their parents by body armor-wearing assault teams carrying automatic weapons in response to a confidential telephone complaint of abuse — which turned out to be a hoax.

This May, former Marine Jose Guerena was gunned down, shot 22 times in a pre-dawn raid by a Pima County, Arizona, police SWAT team which riddled neighboring homes with stray bullets. The “no-knock” search warrant that permitted the unannounced entry into Guerena’s home led to the discovery and confiscation of no illegal contraband, just the death of an innocent man.

And in Stockton, California, members of a Department of Education SWAT team dragged a helpless, handcuffed father through his front yard and held him in a police car for six hours because his estranged wife – who was no longer living at that address – had allegedly defrauded the department of an unspecified amount of money.

Have we become witnesses to the wholesale intimidation by design of the American public; an abuse of authority that features the use of sheer, overwhelming force to amend any dangerous  “anti-government” sentiments of a proud and recalcitrant people who still believe the rights of the individual take precedence over the dictates of the state?

Too often these paramilitary hit squads derive justification for their actions not from an authority born of equity but of power. We’ve heard countless stories of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees harassing women in wheelchairs and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials organizing wide-ranging searches, not in response to any known threat, but simply because they can.

Documents may guarantee rights but body armor, assault vehicles, and automatic weapons eviscerate such paper assurances with devastating ease.

We will only stop despicable and unconstitutional behavior which transcends political party affiliation by making politicians more frightened of voters than they are enamored of power. Tea Parties have made this their goal. All freedom-loving Americans must join the fight.

To contact your Congressional representative, use this link:
To read more about this issue use these links:
Further reading:
 Related posts:
This article originally appeared on CoachIsRight.com and is reprinted with permission.

The Free World Charter: I think we may have found the answer!!!

If you agree with the Principles and would like to fill in the check box and sign the Charter, you will have to go here: http://www.freeworldcharter.org/?a=charter

Here is the full text of The Free World Charter. Please read it carefully and check the box beside each principle if you agree with it. Then enter your name, email, country and click 'sign'.

You will notice the Charter is not very long. In fact, just ten basic principles make up The Free World Charter. While the reasons and implications of the Charter are complex, the actual principles themselves are very simple.

Each principle is terse in language to avoid ambiguity, and is accompanied underneath by a brief description and explanation of why it's needed. If you have any doubts about any of the principles, or are unclear about anything, please have a look at our FAQs below which may answer your question.


In this year, 2011, our personal freedoms, environment and biodiversity have become critically endangered by our mismanagement of global resources.
This charter document proposes ten fundamental principles on which to grow an entirely new world society based on fairness, common sense and survival. Once observed, these principles will realise human equality, minimise suffering and injustice, create a cooperative society that promotes progress and technology, and guarantees a healthy, diverse and sustainable world for all species.

If you agree with this vision, please register your support by becoming a signatory and sharing this website and its ideals with your friends. It is only with popular support that we can effect the kind of changes now necessary to sustain life on Earth into the far future.


Please read through each principle carefully and acknowledge your agreement by checking the box on the right-hand side. Go here to actualy check the box: http://www.freeworldcharter.org/?a=charter


The highest concern of humanity is the combined common good of all living species and biosphere.
Human beings, animals and plants are all inseparable parts of nature. We are IN nature - not outside or above it. All our species are connected to each other and the planet, and rely indirectly on each other for survival.

Humanity's physical impact on the World is now so great that we must exercise wisdom and responsibilty. We must now consider the needs of all species and the environment, as well as ourselves, in all decisions.

I agree

Life is precious in all its forms, and free to flourish in the combined common good.
Life is an amazing phenomenon, and, so far, our planet is the only place we have found it. This makes it a most rare and beautiful thing that should be cherished and respected.

However, life is also food, and all our world's species form a complex food-chain. In order to maintain this food-chain - and thus our biodiversity and survival - we must observe the combined common good of all species when interacting with any one.

I agree

Earth's natural resources are the birthright of all its inhabitants, and free to share in the combined common good.
Every living person and creature on this planet has an automatic entitlement to share in all the Earth's natural resources, and to use them to live a healthy and fulfilling life without obligation or subordination to any other person or creature.

Humanity, due to population size and complex lifestyle, has a particular duty not to overtax these natural resources, or use more than is reasonably necessary to maintain a happy and wholesome life within the combined common good.

I agree

Every human being is an equal part of a worldwide community of humans, and a free citizen of Earth.
Social, ideological and border divisions between people are man-made barriers which have no physical or natural basis. Such artificial divisions can only be counter-productive to the common welfare and survival of society as a whole.

Our common similarities are, however, both physical and natural. Generally speaking, we all want and need the same things. With universal cooperation and equal access, we can all apply our skills more effectively to achieve these common aims.

I agree

Our community is founded on the spirit of cooperation and an understanding of Nature, provided through basic education.
Any child that receives a useful and relevant education into the workings of Nature, the World and community living, will ultimately provide the best service to that World and that community. Traditional career-driven education is now a measurably destructive force.

Ultimately, education will replace regulation, which is really only a crude system of maintaining order. For example, a child that fully understands why a certain action is not possible is infinitely better equipped for life than a child who only knows the fear of punishment for that action.

I agree

Our community provides for all its members the necessities of healthy, fulfilling and sustainable life, freely and without obligation.
Every person should be guaranteed the highest technically possible standard of living without the use of money, trade or debt. There is no longer any logical reason not to do this. Virtually all of human suffering is caused by our outdated system of exchange.

All forms of debt and subordination are not only a hindrance to progress, but are now completely unnecessary. This is due to our command of technology and the ease with which we can produce and manufacture goods for ourselves.

I agree

Our community respects the limits of Nature and its resources, ensuring minimal consumption and waste.
Our resources are limited either by absolute quantity or by the time it takes to manage and replace them. In either case, we must use our resources wisely to preserve both their supply and the environment.

In addition, we must minimise our accumulation of rarely used goods, and the amount of non-reusable waste that we produce. These have direct consequences on our environment. The more we conserve our World, the greater our chances of survival into the future.

I agree

Our community derives its solutions and advances progress primarily through the application of logic and best available knowledge.
In a new society without financial inhibitors and constraints, the greatest challenges facing humanity will be technical ones. ie. How to provide enough food, water, shelter, energy, materials, and ensure a high standard of sustainable living for everybody.

As opposed to traditional politics and speculation, the scientific method is a proven, robust system of solving these technical problems using just the available facts and basic logic. It also has a common reference across all cultures and languages.

I agree

Our community acknowledges its duty of care and compassion for members who are unable to contribute.
People who, for any reason, are unable to look after themselves or contribute back into society, should be afforded every possible amenity, compassion and care from the rest of the community without obligation.

Also, as future contributors to the community, it is vital that we impart as much useful knowledge as we can to our children, in a way that stimulates their creativity, growth and intellect towards future progress.

I agree

Our community acknowledges its responsibility to maintain a diverse and sustainable biosphere for all future life to enjoy.
We must remember that we share our planet not just with other people, animals and plants, but also with the seeds of future people, animals and plants, who will walk and grow here some day.

These beings, who have no voice or influence today, are equally as entitled to life as we are. It is in the interest of all our species to leave the world to our future generations just as we found it, if not better.

I agree

FAQs and common criticism
If you have read and understood the concepts of The Free World Charter and a money-free society, but are still sceptical of the ideas, then you are not alone!

Many people baulk at the notion of removing money, trade and ownership, and for lots of different reasons. This page tries to address these objections, which in most cases are completely understandable.

FAQs and common criticism

If you have read and understood the concepts of The Free World Charter and a money-free society, but are still skeptical of the ideas, then you are not alone!

Many people baulk at the notion of removing money, trade and ownership, and for lots of different reasons. This page tries to address these objections, which in most cases are completely understandable.

Here are the main questions and criticisms that people have with a money-free society:  

If we take away money, how will we live? Won’t we all just be poor?

Money is not essential to life. Resources are what we need to live, not money. Money is just a tool, invented to help organise the distribution of scarce resources. Modern technology now offers us a potential abundance of these resources such as food, water, shelter, and a high standard of living. We can procure, produce and manufacture all of life’s necessities more easily now than ever before. The only thing scarce nowadays is money itself!

In a money-free world, the concept of rich and poor will be meaningless as everyone will have equal access to all life has to offer.

Greed is just human nature!

Human nature has just one function: to survive. This survival instinct drives all our behaviours. So when we are faced with scarcity, we automatically become greedy, because it’s good for survival. Today, money is scarce and we need it to live, so we try and get as much as we can. It’s a perfectly natural response to a world where people who don’t have money die.

Once people realise there is no longer any real scarcity, and they are a vital part of a community that supports them, greed and selfishness will become unnecessary. Our instincts will then drive positive behaviours such as cooperation, trust and compassion which are also necessary for survival.

This sounds like a version of communism, which has always failed.

Any political system, including communism, that uses money is ultimately doomed to fail, because it embodies inequality and oppression. Money, by definition, creates inequality, and upholding that inequality necessitates oppression. The level of inequality and oppression in any political system determines how long the regime will last.

There is only one real law that we must obey, and that is the law of Nature. Failure to abide by it ultimately results in extinction. We need to move beyond traditional politics and governance and solve our common problems together in accordance with Nature.

No ownership? So anyone can just move into my house or take my car?

This initiative is not just a change in economics, it is a complete reset of human values. By removing money, you remove the main motivation for greed. Where there is no greed, there is no struggle for ownership. Also, when everything is free, no-one needs to covet your property when they can just as easily get their own.

In a free world, people will also respect each other’s entitlement to safe dwelling, privacy and security, because that’s how they will be taught from the earliest age - about communities, Nature and how we’re all connected and mutually dependent. This will be taught alongside reading, writing and arithmetic.

Nonsense, we just need tighter regulation and more accountability!

We need education, not regulation. Telling a person that they ‘must not’ do something is no match for the person who is educated to a standard where they understand that they ‘cannot do’ something, especially when the reasons are simple, transparent and fair.

In a free world, people will receive this education to the highest standards from their earliest age - about communities, Nature, the planet, how they work and how they’re all connected. Regulation is a blunt instrument that is currently only used to mask our lack of fairness and proper education.

Everything is free? Great! I’ll have 100 grand pianos please!

Firstly, and assuming somone had a genuine reason for needing 100 grand pianos, an appropriate level of education and responsibilty towards Nature would prevent most people from making such a request, due to the heavy drain on natural resources and human skills that fulfilling such an order would require.

Even so, if such a request was genuine for whatever reason, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be fulfilled providing it is physically possible to do, and the person making the request accepts the length of time it would undoubtedly take to complete.

Science and technology do not have all the answers!

True, and any scientist will freely admit that. The main purpose of science, in fact, is to find answers, and it does so by using consistent measurements and verifiable data in the physical world.

Some people believe there is a world beyond the physical. Science has never proven this and perhaps never will. But whatever your belief in the meta-physical, the challenges that face us today are very much physical and technical ones. For example, how do we provide for everyone while preserving our planet? Politics, speculation or hearsay cannot answer this. A scientific approach is the only way to find answers to technical problems.

There is nothing to fear from a technological world; technology is already a major part of our lives today. Once we separate it from profit, greed and cost limitations, anything is possible. To dream of a free world is human, but to build it requires science.

What about boring or unpleasant jobs that can’t be automated?

There are very few human tasks that could not either be automated or re-engineered in some way to enable automation of it. In the case of an unpleasant or mundane task that cannot be automated for any reason, it can be rotated voluntarily amongst members of the local community.

Most people, if asked to carry out such a task once a month (for example), and serve a community which meets all their needs, would be delighted to volunteer. Those who don’t volunteer, don’t.

What about ‘human’ jobs, like nursing or teaching?

Working together with a common aim is what most of us do every day. We work together as a company, a family, a neighbourhood or a group. We like to cooperate. We like to belong. Ask yourself how many times a day you do something that isn’t directly in your own interest or you don’t get paid for? The answer will surprise you.

Every day, everywhere in the World, we are helping each other because we want to. Because it makes us feel good about ourselves. Humans are a social species and cooperation comes naturally. Removing our financial shackles will fully unleash this natural cooperative desire.

People who have a passion and flair for these ‘human’ jobs will do them because, and only because, they love doing it!

But there will be no motivation to work.. or do anything!

Money is not an incentive to work, it is an obligation to earn. True incentives to work are passion, flair, helping out, meeting people, wanting to learn. Once money is removed from our lives, people will work with these incentives only, and be far happier and more productive as a result.

As to having nothing to do, that’s up to the individual. In a free world, being free of work and financial constraints would enable you to fulfil your dreams in ways that you can only imagine now. For instance, you could travel anywhere, anytime; pursue your hobby or passion without cost constraints; contribute your skills or talents into the community; spend more time with your family, etc.
This is just a Utopian dream and will probably never work.

Utopia is fiction. This is not fiction. It’s technically possible now, based on fact and our current knowledge. It has never been done before because it hasn’t been possible before. Having no historical precedent does not mean that it won’t work or isn’t worth a try.

It is by no means a perfect system and doesn’t claim to solve all the World’s problems, but it will solve the vast majority of them, and for that it is greatly superior to what we have now.

Where are the details?? The Charter says nothing about...

There are many, many issues which the Charter does not discuss. We describe these as ‘secondary issues’. The Charter is only concerned with the most basic primary issues of how we position ourselves with each other, our planet and Nature. Everything else is secondary to that.

Once we agree on these most fundamental rules, how we shape our world or conduct our society should be self-determining through an evolutionary process. Consider it like designing a better world from the ground up. The seed does not know how the plant will look.

Is this a cult or religion of some kind?

No. Everything about this initiative is based only on fact and common sense. Also, we will never ask you for anything.

The world is already over-crowded, we can’t save everybody!

Over-population is a serious global issue, but not an issue that should be solved by simply allowing people to die. There are many more humane and sensible approaches to controlling population numbers other than cruel neglect.

Moreover, the problems of population numbers are going to be with us - free world or not - and it is far more likely that we will be able to devise a rational system through positive education that is given universally, freely and without the traditional budgetary constraints.

Isn’t this the same as Zeitgeist or the Venus Project movement?

The Free World Charter initiative was originally inspired by Jacque Fresco’s Venus Project and the ideology of a Resource-Based Economy. However there are some basic differences in approach:

The Charter initiative does not propose designs or details of any future society, as we feel these can be divisive topics, and therefore a distraction to the more urgent need to simply realign ourselves with Nature.

We don’t think you can design a new society from the top-down. As with all natural processes, it can only happen from the bottom-up. Once we agree to follow just these few basic rules of Nature, then we can allow our society to evolve whatever way it wants to go.

We are not interested in large projects, activism or fund-raising. The Charter is simply a passive means for people to demonstrate their support for a Nature-based ethos that moves slowly, firmly and positively in one direction only.

We do support both Venus and Zeitgeist, but are not affiliated with either of them. If you are a member of either organisation, then we would invite you to sign The Free World Charter too.

I already live very well without money - anyone can live like this now!

Many people opt for an ‘off-grid’ lifestyle, growing their own produce and becoming energy self-sufficient. However, the vast majority of people would prefer not to live this way. Most people don’t want to live in isolation, and prefer the inclusiveness and security of the greater community.

Off-grid living may work very well for some, but only a very small minority. It could also be shown to increase financial pressure on others, as traditional businesses lose their customers.

I know our current system isn’t perfect, but it’s the best there is.

Imagine if somehow there was no system, and you were asked to choose between one that was free, equitable and sustainable, or one that promoted greed, inequality and pollution, which one would you choose? There’s no comparison.

The fact is, our monetary system is mathematically unworkable with its ever-increasing debt, it creates and promotes inequality, and is detrimental to life itself through its prioritisation of profit over people and planet. The only reason we are still using this system is because we haven’t adapted to our new capabilities, and it’s simply easier to maintain what we know rather than start anew.

OK, but how do we get from ‘here’ to ‘there’?

There are so many variables regarding what specific changes in society would actually precipitate such a massive shift in global operations, that speculating how it might unfold is almost pointless. The only thing we can say for certain is that it WILL happen when enough people want it.

Spreading the word about a free world will not lead us to a transition, spreading the word IS the transition. We are already in it. All we need is a sufficient will of the people to bring about the necessary changes. A figure as low as 1% of the world’s population may even be enough to start an unstoppable chain-reaction, but how it actually unfolds is anyone’s guess!

I still see a major problem with this idea!

If you still see a major problem with this initiative that hasn’t been addressed here, or believe you have spotted a serious flaw, then you must compare any perceived flaw against our current system, whose flaws include mass starvation, poverty, debt, wars, pollution and needless death.

It is highly unlikely that any potential flaw will outweigh the many flaws with our current system. This is not intended to be a perfect system, it’s just better than the current one. If you still strongly disagree and would like to raise the issue, then please join in the discussion on our Facebook page, and we’ll try and answer your questions.

Soda Bottle Solar Water Heater

I'm posting this because when I posted the solar light bulb made out of a plastic bottle I had people come from all over the world to watch the video ( hope it helped some of the more unfortunate people of the world) This video is just as important to those of you that don't have electricity or hot water heaters. Enjoy!!

One World! One God! One Race!
The Human Race!!!
Standing together to make a better world,
For All Mankind!!!!

Love Always
Forever Peace

Sun + Soda Bottles = Hot Water 

People all over the world are figuring out ingenious ways to do things with the heat of the sun and used bottles!

Welcome to Southern Brazil, where we find this home made solar water heater, that makes use of plastic bottles, black painted milk cartons and PVC pipes.

There are 200 used soda bottles and 200 liters of water in the tank. The thermometer tells us this water is heated to about 42 degrees C, about 106 degrees F.

Hot water using no electricity or fossil fuels!

1 Marine vs. 30 Cops (Marine Wins)

My father fought in the second world war to free this county and this world of tyranny and corruption by the elite dictators that thought they could run this world their with power and money!

I know what it would have done to him if he was alive today and could see what is happening around the world that he put his ass on the line to protect and  make free!

I am not ashamed to say that I sat here with tears running down my face as I watched this young man face down the NYPC.

I support our young son's and daughter in the militarily 100% it's the wars and the government that I don't support anymore!!!

It's about time the police (some of them) the politicians, the Rich/Elite (the 1%) understand that the standing army's and the police are made up of our son's and daughters and that when push comes to shove they WILL be on the side of the good honest people of this world!!!!

Thank you Sgt. Shamar Thomas! you would have made my father proud as I'm sure you have made your parents proud, the US, Canada and the world, need more young men and women like you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One World! One God! One Race!
Standing together to make a better world,
For All Mankind!!!

Love Always
Forever Peace

This is an amazing confrontation caught on camera at the Occupy
Times Square protest recently in New York.

Angry at having seen his unarmed fellow citizens being abused by
the police, U.S. Marine Sgt. Shamar Thomas gives the NYPD an ear

Sometimes the right person with the right words and motivation can
make a difference. Watch this video and if you can appreciate the
message and the passion with which it is conveyed, make sure his
words are spread far and wide.

1 Marine vs. 30 Cops

United States Marine Corps. Sgt. Shamar Thomas from Roosevelt, NY went toe to toe with the New York Police Department. An activist in the Occupy Wall Street movement, Thomas voiced his opinions of the NYPD police brutality that had and has been plaguing the #OWS movement.

Thomas is a 24-year-old Marine Veteran (2 tours in Iraq), he currently plays amateur football and is in college.

Thomas comes from a long line of people who sacrifice for their country: Mother, Army Veteran (Iraq), Step father, Army, active duty (Afghanistan), Grand father, Air Force veteran (Vietnam), Great Grand Father Navy veteran (World War II).

USMC Sgt Shamar Thomas on Countdown w/ Keith Olberman

"Taking It To The Streets" Oct 17th - Sgt. Shamar Thomas interviewed on Countdown with Keith Olbermann re his rant Saturday night against the NYPD brutality at this past weekend's Occupy Wall Street protest, in Times Square.

Ron Paul proposes $1T in specific budget cuts

My own personal views:

Why anyone wouldn't want this man to run their country in this desperate time in history is beyond me!!!!

You would have to be a complete idiot, one of the Rich/Elite 1% that is hell bent on destroying this world and the environment all in the name of more money or be so tied up in your own personal life style that you don't give a damn about your family, your children, grandchildren or the future or your country!!!!

One World! One God! One Race!
Standing together to make a better world,
For All Mankind!!!

Love Always
Forever Peace


Taken from: Politico.com at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html

Ron Paul is seen in a Sept. 5 file photo. |AP Photo
Paul is expected to say his plan would balance the budget by the third year of his presidency. | AP Photo Close

Ron Paul’s opinions about cutting the budget are well-known, but on Monday, he got specific: The Texas congressman laid out a budget blueprint for deep and far-reaching cuts to federal spending, including the elimination of five Cabinet-level departments and the drawdown of American troops fighting overseas.

There’s even a symbolic readjustment of the president’s salary to put it in line with the average American salary.
“Our debt is too big, our government is too big, and we have to recognize how serious the problem is,” Paul said during an afternoon speech in Las Vegas ahead of Tuesday’s GOP debate there.
The plan, Paul said, would cut $1 trillion in spending his first year in the White House and create a balanced federal budget by the third year of his presidency.

“All the current candidates and many in Washington, they sort of talk around [the problem],” Paul said. “A lot of people will say, ‘well cutting a trillion dollars in one year is radical.’ Well, I operate under the assumption that the radicals have been in charge for way too long.”

Many of the ideas in Paul’s 11-page Plan to Restore America are familiar from his staunch libertarianism, as well as tea party favorites, like eliminating the Education and Energy Departments. But Paul goes further, proposing an immediate freeze on spending by numerous government agencies at levels from 2006, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastic reductions in spending elsewhere. The Environmental Protection Agency would see a 30 percent cut; the Food and Drug Administration would see a 40 percent cut; and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He’d also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.

Appearing on CNN ahead of the speech, Paul was pressed by Wolf Blitzer on how eliminating about 221,000 government jobs across five cabinet departments would boost the economy. He responded: “They’re not productive jobs,” he said.

“You cut government spending, that money goes back to you. You get to spend the money,” Paul said during his speech. “I am absolutely convinced it is the only road to prosperity.”

Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.

And in a noticeable nod to seniors during an election year, when Social Security’s become an issue within the Republican presidential primaries, the campaign says that plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.”

The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president’s pay would be cut from $400,000 to $39,336 — a level that the Paul document notes is “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.”

Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains and dividends taxes and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital without tax penalties. All tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush would be extended.

And like the rest of his GOP rivals, Paul would repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, along with the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law enacted last year. A longtime Federal Reserve critic, Paul would also push a full audit of the central bank, as well as legislation to “strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html#ixzz1b7xzIWvm

2 Degrees of Separation: A Plane Ride Next to a Top Congressional Staffer for a Major Party Leader

If you've ever tried to explain to someone why they should vote or why, it's important to vote, or what the role of the Government should or should not be in your country or what money really is and how it all works or why they should vote for Ron Paul the 2012 election, this (slightly long winded but well worth the read) letter explains it very well to anyone that is interested in their future, the future of their children or the future of their country!

Thank you Rob! I can't tell you how much I enjoyed reading this letter! Very well done!!!!


Submitted by RobHino on Mon, 10/17/2011

I won't reveal any names to protect the young congressional aide, but this weekend I was fortunate enough to sit next to a staffer of one of the leading members of congress on my flight home from Atlanta. I was proudly wearing my Ron Paul rEVOLution t-shirt as I boarded the plane. As we departed, the young man in the seat next to me said, "So why Ron Paul?"

And as many of you likely experience, I went through my basic Ron Paul spiel which could be paraphrased as, "Well...I vote on three issues...Monetary Policy, End the Wars, and the Role of Government."

He was in his early twenties, and I'm in my early thirties but always get mistaken for a carefree twenty-something, perhaps with some justification. We both were Americans with Mexican decent, we were both from South Texas, and we were both into politics. So naturally we clicked right away even though we were on opposite sides of the political spectrum. When he told me who he worked for in Congress, I was like, "Wow. This is going to be a very interesting 3 hour flight." He revealed that he worked for one of the top leaders in Congress as a congressional adviser regarding Latino concerns.

A little background on me is helpful. As I mentioned, I'm from South Texas, originally raised in a small town near a major border checkpoint a few hours north of the Mexican border. I moved to Corpus Christi when I was in 6th grade and have been living in San Antonio for the past 11 years. My whole family has always voted Democrat for the most part, and growing up, that's just what you did. I didn't really start voting until after 9/11 when I became a political junky trying to understand why things like that happen. I supported Bill Clinton, and I voted for the first time in a Presidential election for John Kerry. I’m ashamed now, but I am always reminded of one of my favorite quotes:
Being wrong is erroneously associated with failure, when in fact to be proven wrong should be celebrated…for it is elevating someone to a new level of understanding…furthering awareness.
While I towed the conventional line of many Hispanics in America, one that says the Democrats are for the middle class and the poor and the Republicans are for the rich, I always remained sympathetic to non-conventional and third party candidates like Jesse Ventura, Ross Perot, Ralph Nadar and others. I became politically active during the 2006 Texas Gubernatorial Election and was vehemently against Rick Perry. I volunteered my time and money to Kinky Friedman. I was actually a blogger for the campaign at getKinky.org. After that campaign, I quickly realized that the system was rigged, and that both parties are different wings of the same bird, flying in the wrong direction. Kinky’s concession speech in 2006 was very inspirational to me, and I feel it is partly responsible for me seeking out the Liberty message. It is extremely related to our movement and still applies today.

Sorry for the shaky camera work:

It was because of my activism during the Kinky Friedman campaign and what I saw in the capabilities of internet as leveling the playing field that I eventually stumbled across Ron Paul in 2007, and my life changed forever! Everything made complete sense, and it was simple to break down complex issues to get at the root of our current problems.

I participated in the 11/05/07 and 12/16/07 moneybombs and every other one since, and I was a Ron Paul delegate to the Texas Republican Convention. I’ve frequented the DP for years, recently decided to start writing again, and would like to be more active in San Antonio.

We started talking about the three issues I named, Monetary Policy, Ending the Wars, and the Role of Government.

These are my typical arguments in the case that they may be of benefit to you, my fellow DP readers. Constructive criticism is welcomed.

When debating, I like to start with things both sides agree on, so naturally we started on Ending the Wars.

Essentially my argument is while we may have the moral obligation to “help” other countries, we don’t have the legal obligation. Never should a government use force to influence others, instead lead by example so others will emulate you. We got to be loved around the world because people in other countries wanted to be free like us, not because we intervene in their internal affairs, prop up their dictators to do our bidding, sell weapons to their enemies, and occupy their holy lands. Republicans are quick to tout the horns of personal responsibility domestically, but they do not apply that same principle to foreign affairs. In the recent decade and under the guise of national defense, they ushered in a precedent of preventative and preemptive wars, which are not wars of defense but rather offense. Democrats tout the horns of spreading democracy, but we do not live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. Democracy is rule of the people…majority rule.

Democracy is tyranny of the minority by the majority. Democracy is mob rule. Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner. A Republic is the rule of law.

Allow me demonstrate the difference in the setting of the old west. Imagine in the old west a group of 30 vigilantes chased a lone bank robber. They catch him and vote 30 to 1 to hang him. The bank robber gets a vote too though. In a democracy, the bank robber would be hung. In that same scenario in a Republic however, the 30 vigilantes would catch the bank robber, vote 30 to 1 to hang him, but the sheriff would step in. “You can’t hang that man. He’s entitled to trial and jury of his peers.” Even the jury doesn’t have majority rule. It has to be unanimous.

Basically, democracies protect the majority while republics protect the minority and the individual. The democratic form of government was debated by the founders and ultimately the idea was discarded due to the lavishes that tend to arise when the ruling class vote themselves raises, free education and free healthcare, and vote for laws that raise barriers to market entry for their competitors. This leads to what we have today, Corporatism. All open and free societies tend to gravitate from Republics to Democracies to Oligarchies to Anarchy to Dictatorship as the elite and Money Power who seek to control every aspect of our lives gradually take hold through incrementalism. (Insert frog in boiling water metaphor.)

I then started to talk about the true political spectrum. I told him most people think the true political spectrum is one where on the far right you have fascists and corporatists and on the far left you have communism and socialism.

But the true political spectrum is a percentage of power scale from 100% to 0%.


On the far right you have 0% and on the far left you have 100%. The far right is anarchism, or NO government power. On the far left you have Monarchy, or TOTAL government power. Starting from the far left and total government power, the different forms of government are Monarchy (Rule of One), Oligarchy (Rule by a Small Group), Democracy (Rule of the People), Republic (Rule of Law) and Anarchy (The Absence of Gov’t). All the “isms” like Communism, Socialism, Fascism, etc. are on the far left with the need for more government power to enforce. This idea that people are against capitalism, is a misunderstanding of terms.

Capital is simply the means of production. It’s people, money, assets, buildings, machinery, tools, computers, etc. Socialists are capitalists too. The only difference is who owns or regulates the capital. Communism is total control and ownership of all capital by government. Socialism may allow private ownership of capital, but its use is regulated almost entirely by government. Free markets advocate private ownership of capital and private (if necessary local) regulation of capital.

Democrats aren’t against people like Steve Jobs are they? So the real argument is, HOW does the 1% make their billions and trillions? If they make it through hard work like Steve Jobs, that’s okay. But if they make if off the backs of the American taxpayer through crony capitalism, corporatism, bailouts, no-bid contracts, secret deals, or through the inflationary tactics of central banking, then we have every right to be in the streets raising hell. But we need to make sure we are united in our message, as the powers that be are always co-opting grassroot uprisings like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. The Money Powers don’t want our groups to unite.

The founders gave us a Republic because all the states agreed we needed SOME Federal government, but how much is SOME? They decided on just enough Federal government to provide a strong national defense (not military adventurism), to allow for a judicial system to resolve state conflicts, to coin money and regulate the value thereof, and the other few enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution.

I’m sure that we all have to lay a little background work and historical events to make our arguments, but this information is very relevant when trying to convince people who have been indoctrinated through standard media channels used by mainstream, everyday Americans.

We continued to when, how and with what authority to go to war and I explained to him concepts of blowback (Hussein, the Shaw, Taliban, etc.), the Just War Theory, and how when wars aren’t declared through proper procedures outlined in the constitution, the wars never end. They never end because there is no clearly declared enemy, no declared objectives, no defined strategies, no definitions of victory and no exit strategies. I told him we have over 700 bases around the world in over 130 countries…that’s an empire. And all empires throughout history have imploded due to economic reasons…they spread themselves too thin and spent too much money maintaining them. As Commander in Chief, Ron Paul would end ALL wars and bring ALL troops home immediately and WITHOUT having to consult Generals.

This would STREGTHEN our national defense and stimulate our economy:

1. We obviously need to cut, and the easiest place to start is overseas.
2. It would save BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS.
3. It would take American Soldiers and Diplomats out of harm’s way.
4. It would put US troops to use defending America and her borders.
5. Troops would spend their money at home rather than in the Middle East, Europe, Asia, or other countries.
6. BILLIONS saved would be redirected to shore-up entitlement programs like Social Security for those who want to stay in it.
7. Young people and those who want to opt-out of the system would be able to do so since funding would no longer be on our shoulders.

The reestablishment of non-interventionalism as our foreign policy would offer a transitional period out of some of our entitlement programs. It would allow those who we have taught to be dependent on government to continue to receive the same benefits while allowing younger generations to opt-out and keep more of their personal income and seek out more local and free-market solutions. This alone would END THE WARS, cut spending, make us safer, shore-up Social Security and truly stimulate the economy with more money spent at home. I’m okay with bailouts…let’s bailout on Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Europe, Japan, and all other countries where we have troops deployed.
It’s time to bring our troops home and transform our military into an elite, tactical, smaller force capable of quick and swift deployments around the world (when necessary, justified, debated & declared by the people through their representatives in Congress) to efficiently extract enemy targets without the need for the bloated military industrial complex and secret weapon contracts, and with the utmost respect for human life and innocence. Others not involved in deployments would be utilized as National Guardsman and Reserves or Militias to defend America instead of defending Europe, Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia and others countries whose defense is subsidized by the American Taxpayer. We can’t afford it anymore…we never could.

The ideas of, “Well what about all the troops that come home? Are they going to be unemployed?” are valid concerns. But here is the real question, “Can government create jobs?” The answer is no. Government can ONLY reallocate (and in every case misallocate) resources it collects from others (you and me). The government has misallocated human capital (troops) into certain industries (war & enforcement) when that human capital (troops) would have been used more efficiently by the market (mechanics, doctors, entrepreneurs, electricians, teachers, inventors, etc.). We could have 100% employment if we reinstated the draft.

You can always see the jobs the government creates (soldiers, social worker, public works programs, etc.), but what you don’t see is the jobs that would have been created if
Americans were allowed to keep more of their income and spend it on phones, computers, charities, schooling, etc. The decisions made by the buyers are a better reflection of what true market demands are, so therefore the jobs created in this scenario are more sustainable and productive. Yes there will be some corrections necessary to balance effects of government meddling with market forces, but these are minimal compared to the unintended consequences of too much government intervention abroad and domestically as seen in casualties of war, inflated money supply, fewer jobs, foreclosures, etc.

I questioned, “Where are all the people protesting Obama for not ending the wars as he promised?” Ron Paul has never voted for any war…period. In fact, when these efforts to rush to war arise, he regularly introduces declarations of war which obviously he votes no to…but so does everyone else. Instead Congress transfers the power to decide whether or not to go to war to the President. This is extremely unconstitutional and the main problem with our foreign policy…that we have not declared a war since WWII.

This was an easy segue into Monetary Policy, “None of these wars would be possible if Congress had to tax the American people to fund them.”

I asked, “Where does the government get money to spend on things it determines to be necessary?”

Government money comes from taxation, and when total expenditures exceed total revenue, through deficit financing (borrowing & printing more). Well taxes come from the people obviously. Borrowing comes for those countries willing to loan us money at interest (China). Well someone has to pay that that money back. Who’s that someone?

That’s also the people and our future generations. Printed money comes from the Federal Reserve. “Well isn’t all money printed?” Yes, all money has to be printed. Does the Federal Reserve (FED) print all money in circulation? Yes. “Well how does all the money get into circulation?”

The FED prints money and loans it the US Treasury who issues treasury securities (government backed debt, T-bills, T-notes, or T-bonds depending on the term of investment) as collateral or a promise to pay. The government then spends the printed dollars into circulation by paying troops, government contractors, and other expenses. The money then trickles down to you and me through the market as money exchanges hands through consumption of goods and services and investments.
The key here is that the only way money can get into circulation, is if someone borrows it…essentially MONEY = DEBT.

The FED, a secretive cartel of powerful banking families (The Money Power or Money Trust), neither a completely private nor completely government entity, has been given a gov’t backed monopoly on the issuance of our currency, AND THEY GET TO COLLECT INTEREST OFF OF IT.

At this point in my discussions I usually ask, “Do you have a dollar bill?”

When you read the title on any US dollar bill, it says, “Federal Reserve Note” (FRN). A note is a loan or a promise to pay. These bills of credit are liabilities of the FED and obligations by the US Government secured by…you guessed it…the people and future generations’ obligation to pay back plus interest. However, the interest due is also payable in FRN’s which also have interest attached. The result is a never ending debt system that is impossible to pay back when you’re paying back with debt. As Jefferson stated:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies…If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks]…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild family international banking dynasty stated, “Give me the control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes the laws."

So the simple answer to my question, “Where does the government get money to spend on things it determines to be necessary?” is they borrow it from counterfeiters. And worse, when the FED prints more money to loan us to fund deficit spending, it also dilutes the purchasing power of the money in savings and already in circulation. This is seen as higher prices which are a tax, a hidden tax called the inflation tax. But the truth is, prices are not rising, the the value of the dollar is decreasing as more and more and more and more and more are printed in secret by the Federal Reserve.

My argument regarding monetary policy is that in order to completely understand and analyze current events, it is imperative that you first understand money, central banking and The Federal Reserve System, for that is the key to unlocking all the doors of resolution. Money is one half of every transaction and therefore EXTREMELY important when dealing with most political issues.

I've tried to illustrate how artificially low interest rates lead to mal-investment, over-consumption, artificial demand, and bubbles in most market sectors:

Money is simply a widely accepted medium of exchange that is used to assess value of goods and services and as a store of wealth. Debt is not money. It is debt. Federal Reserve Notes are debt. Federal Reserve Notes do not hold their value (purchasing power) over time so they are not a store of wealth either, and thus they are not money.

Federal Reserve Notes are simply Monopoly Money that the Parker Brothers have convinced our government to lease as their country’s currency. Knowing that people would not willingly accept this Monopoly Money, government must force its citizens to use this fiat Monopoly Money. The problem is that the Parker Brothers continue to secretly print extra Monopoly Money for themselves, their friends, family and even distant cousins.

We need to return to a monetary system that can’t be easily manipulated. We should debate some sort of pseudo-gold-silver standard so that our currency cannot be rapidly and easily expanded for private benefit.

The congressional staffer of a major congressional leader repeatedly answered with, “that’s true” as I rambled on for hours on Ron Paul. He actually got his phone out and started taking notes! I’m not kidding!

We continued to my last voting issue, The Role of Government.

Is the role of government to police and bomb the world or to protect life? Is the role of government to spend our money or maintain strong money? Is the role of government to provide free education and free healthcare or to provide free markets? Is the role of government to tell us what to eat, what to drink, what we can put in our bodies or is the role of government to protect our liberties? Is the role of government to provide energy for everyone or to protect against corporatism and cronyism? Is the role of government to protect the environment or to protect private property rights?

The role and powers of the federal government are CLEARLY defined in the constitution.
All branches of government are CLEARLY outlined and defined. Anything not clearly enumerated is left for the people and the 50 states to decide how to handle. The more complex the issue, the more local the solution should be.

We have NO CLUE of what kind of education systems we would have if we unleashed the the creative power of teachers and businessmen. Maybe Texas would say that 12 grades of schooling is excessive and decide 10 grades is enough. Maybe New York would find that 15 grades is best for their students in their state. Maybe California would decide that the length of time in school is determined by the child's ability to learn. Maybe some rural schools and under-funded schools would operate on a system similar to this:

Federal mandates and one-size fits all solutions don’t work. They don’t take into account the various regions in the country, the different demographics, values, resources, etc.

Instead, we should advocate 50 creative legislative laboratories to deal with issues like social security, education, energy and abortion. Some states would make bad decisions.

Some states would make good decisions. The cream will rise to the top. Some will succeed, and some will fail. There can’t be winners without losers.

We have to allow people to fail, and learn from their mistakes. The more government tries to help, the more government hurts. Our elected politicians do not understand the unintended consequences of their actions.

The clearest argument against excessive government meddling in our lives is the constitutional reason: The federal government simply does not have the authority to do 80% of the things it does.

Whether it’s healthcare, education, energy, entitlement programs, the EPA, endless war, issue stimulus bills and bailout Wall Street, Congress has ZERO authority to do so.

This is why Congressman Ron Paul is known as Dr. No, and as a strict Constitutionalist.

He takes his Oath of Office seriously. Anytime a bill comes up for a vote, the first thing Dr. Paul does is ask if Congress has the authority to legislate the item up for vote. If the answer is no, he votes no. Of course the status-quo politicians and pundits will spin that to paint Ron Paul as radical and fringe.

Take for instance when H.R. 3501 and H.R. 573, bills to award Ronald Reagan and Rosa Parks $30,000 Congressional Medals of Honor, came up for vote. Congressman Paul was the lone “no” vote. He instead offered $100 out of his own pocket and challenged the other 434 members of congress to do the same instead of using taxpayer dollars unconstitutionally. If all the members had put in $100, they would have had more than enough.

All people want access to healthcare, insurance, education, affordable energy and other goods and services. But the fact remains that ALL goods and services are delivered more efficiently and at a lower cost by private industry than if delivered by government agencies. Healthcare is good, not a right. Insurance is a product, not a right. Education is a service, not a right. Energy is a product, not a right. You don’t have a right to food or healthcare. You can’t walk into someone’s garden and take their vegetables. You can’t walk into a restaurant or a hospital and demand goods and services for free. Those goods and services are property of the business offering them to the market. The business owners must be compensated before their goods or services can be transferred to those demanding them.

The more government spends trying to deliver these goods and services to the market instead of allowing private industry to deliver them, the more prices rise and the more quality falls.

Look at industries where there is heavy government spending (healthcare, education, energy, war, agriculture). Prices in these industries are inflated, and the quality of the product we’re getting is lousy. Advanced technology is supposed to lower costs of production in normal market conditions, but in all these areas prices continue to rise despite exponential technological advances in manufacturing, computing, logistics, medical, energy, etc.

If you instead look at industries where there are fewer subsidies, less meddling and freer markets, these industries tend to produce better products for gradually decreasing prices…the Arts & Entertainment (music, Hollywood, performing arts, digital technology), Communication Technology (phones, computers, internet), Sports (NFL, NBA, Academy, fishing, hunting), Pet Industry, etc.

Think of your nearest hospital. There is a good chance the name of it is either some Saint or some University. That’s because many of our hospitals started off as church and university hospitals. Many of these hospitals where charity hospitals that offered services for free or whatever patients could pay. They didn’t ask for ID’s or Green Cards. They helped as many people as they could regardless of their ability to pay, and they worked to keep costs down. As government regulation set in however, many of these hospitals had to spend money to keep up with licenses, certifications, proper procedures, red tape, and other bureaucracy and could no longer operate in charitable fashion, and most shut down.

There are still a few around today, like the Shriners Hospitals for Children.
Ron Paul would move to foster the type of environment where charities wanting to provide free healthcare are not burdened with over-regulation and unnecessary expenditures.

Politicians in Washington today are plagued by Keynesian Economic thinking as oppose to Austrian Economics.

Investopedia defines Keynesian Economics as:

A supporter of Keynesian economics believes it is the government's job to smooth out the bumps in business cycles. Intervention would come in the form of government spending and tax breaks in order to stimulate the economy, and government spending cuts and tax hikes in good times, in order to curb inflation.

Supporters of Austrian economics believe it is the government’s role to simply maintain free markets and a sound currency, to enforce contracts, to provide for bankruptcy laws and courts for disputes, and then to stay out of the market. They believe that people should decide where to spend their money, not governments. If bad decisions are made, business should fail and not be bailed out at the taxpayers’ expense. Austrians also firmly believe that the Federal Reserve System is responsible for the booms and busts of the business cycle and thus have accurately predicted the bursting of several bubbles including the dot com, housing, NASDAQ and the looming dollar bubble that’s floating above our heads.

As the pilot came on the PA, we were wrapping up our conversation. The young man was in awe that really we are all fighting the same thing. He saw the passion in my eyes, and he was EXTREMELY open-minded while searching for answers. It turns out that he has several Ron Paul friends who have been trying to convert him. One of those friends was actually on the way to pick him up from the airport and the Congressional Staffer couldn’t wait to tell him this entire story. I wasn’t quite sure if I ended up converting him to a supporter, but I think he is going to go home and do a little research of his own and come our way. I could see it in his eyes. He was really into the message of freedom and like how things could be explained.

So now to my long winded point.

We should refrain from labeling people as Liberals and Socialists. Many of them are just misguided like I used to be and have never been introduced to the Liberty message in a coherent and thoughtful way. Many of them really do care just as much as we do. We should embrace the Occupy Wall Street movement and try to bring our message to them.

We should realize that the Money Powers wants us to remain fractured. They do not want our two movements to realize our enemy is one in the same.

Several months ago a friend and I were discussing how when a really sound principled idea springs up, all of a sudden outside forces latch onto that idea to make it their own. He asked how to keep it from getting tainted and asked if we have to eat some bad fruit with the good.

I told him:

“We root them out and expose them. We never waiver and never compromise on our individual principals. Instead, we build coalitions and focus on what we agree on rather than what we don't. We educate our friends and family on how to spot media manipulation and where to find credible information sources. We make it point to interject these principles WHENEVER the opportunity presents itself no matter the scorn we receive in return. We donate, vote, and volunteer for candidates who have a track record of sustaining these principles. We make it our life goal to bring about REAL change before we breathe our last breath....we do this or we deserve what is forced upon us by those who seek to control every aspect of our lives.”

Occupied Wall Street Journal

News From The Revolution

Occupy Wall Street protesters have begun publishing their own newspaper!

A volunteer group runs the paper, called "Occupied Wall Street Journal" at a secret location.

50,000 copies of the first issue of the paper were gone within two days. So were 100,000 of the second issue.

Two main organizers of the Occupied Wall Street Journal newspaper are Arun Gupta and Jed Brandt, who also work on The Indypendent.

Jed Brandt explains: " What most Americans believe is not allowed on television. They have the same commentators, telling us the same issues over and over, pointing fingers, telling us who to hate and fear. We need to provide something for people all across the country that encourages them to directly participate."

The material ranges from quotes from Chris Hedges, Naomi Klein's speech, "5 Things You Can Do Now", as well as an introduction to the protest called Occupation for Dummies".

People reading this in subways, in parks, on streets, older people, people who are curious, who heard  there's a lot of noise being heard at Wall Street, what's this all about? You need words that are in print that shock and make the reader think, says managing editor Michael Levitin.

The paper plans to go national. Meanwhile, although the below mentioned website is not a direct source, you can read the paper here and find instructions downloading:


Imagine: there is no website for this paper yet, because the urgency to go to print and get in into people's hands was played out in real time, old school 3D, down on Wall Street in October of 2011.