Comments on: it means something, important Blog, news, books Sat, 14 Oct 2017 12:41:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: dutchess Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:10:49 +0000 well i think the world needs to do something. because you got dads and moms and husbans and kids going over there and dieing to keep us in freedom and to keep us alive when there a kids out here everyday, being beatin and raped and a whole lot of other things. everyday there is a little girl or a little boy who kills him/her self because she cant take the pain in her mind and in her heart when shes listening to her mom and her brothers and sisters get hit and scream in pain. and you know what… someday america is going to see this and people are going to start helping and when people stop saying things like oh i feel so bad for you and oh i wish i could do something… people never want to hear things like that. they want you, they need you to help. i have a best friend who was been in that bad kind of situation. her mom used to drug her and bring guys home that would rape her,her sister and hit her 3 brothers. in fact… her sister killed herself. her brother died. and she hasnt seen her other two brothers in 5 years. she dosnt even know if there still alive… now you tell me. if you had a friend that had over 100 scars on her body, not only from herself trying to kill herself but from people. and she can remember so many bad things even when she was 3. 3,4,5, all the way up to 10 years old…. then her prinsipal figyored out what was happing and she and her sibblings were split apart and taken away. its not like they all would go to a diffrent family member… because they were the same way… and all thoughs guys went to jail but her mom didnt. and even though she is 16 now she still cant get over it. her mind,body,and sole have been scared for life. she will never forget all these bad things. and thats not even the worst case. the worst is there are still more children out there that are even worse than her. so what im saying is while there are people going to Irac and dieing over there fighting for our right to freedom and so we can actually stay alive. there are people over here, kids,teens,adults over here dieing because of all the bad in the world. so the next time you go to the mall with your mom to look for that new outfit to go with thoughs new shoes, and complain when you leave with out that right outfit. why dont you think of the people out there who cant go into a mall and get cloths or cant even step out there house in fear that theres another guy out there just waiting to try to kill him/her. because hey… they cant go to the mall and go omg i love this shurt… mom i have to have it!!! pictcer you saying that to your mom right now and your mom replys sorry girl we cant go to the mall because i spent all our monie on beer drugs and other things. plus i have to put something in your stomice. you dam kids eat to much. the other day i put a toy in a bag to go to good will. that toy belonged to my sister but she never played with it. it was dusty and everything. she saw it in the good will bag and took it out and said well this is mine and i dont have to give it away if i dont want to and bla bla bla… and i just shuk my head and said. hayley there is a little girl your age out there that insted of getting this shes getting slaped.and througn up against the wall for no reson what so ever. she said… i dont care im not that little girl she dosnt have to have my toy… and it just amazed me… i was a little girl and i was all about my mom. we had the funist time and everything… then she got married to a guy and something bad happined. so they broke up. im the only one that was there for her when she was scared or crying or fealing so sad. she promised me that if she ever found another man than she would bring him home first just to make sure i felt comforitable with him. time went around and we were the best of friends. i went everywere with her. i gave her my life to hold. i gave her my heart and everything. then one day she said one of my friends have to sleep over for a while so he can find a house. well he came over for about a week and a half. he would come have dinner with us and play diffrent games. well one day i was playing in the hall and mom came up to me and picked me up and set me on my bed. she said. im getting married! your going to have a step dad! she broke her promis. she never told me they were going out. she just said they were friends. well i was little and that was ok with me because OMG yay!!! i get to walk down the isle in a pritty dress!!! well i did it and then everything went wrong. my grades were always A, B’s i got a d on something… big deal. right? then i started to lose friends starting with my best friend. well ya i was upset about that. then i was told. TOLD. we were moving. umm hello. why wasnt i asked??? we moved and everything else went rong. i was ignored by all in the house. all except for my cat. i would wake up and take care of my personal hygean and cook my own breakfast and everythig because oh guess what no one would be home. so you got this kid basicly taking care of her self. i got lonly. and sad. i thought it was all my falt. i went to school and i got the hotest and most populer boyfriend and all these friends. well so it was ok. kinda of. id get home. no mom. no anybody till about 7 or 8 at night. so i would eat and then go up stars to bed. repeat for the hole year. well i started to bring my sadness to school and guess what. lost my boyfirned and with him went all my firneds… so again i was left alone. well hey that made me even more sad. as time went on i changed all these mixed emotions into one. anger. i got yelled at. all the time. for leaving a light on. or something stupid like that. i got draged places because mom wanted to beleave that we were all one happy family. i left for the summer. i couldnt get rid of the anger. it stayed with me were ever i went. and it torcherd me. i go back and the same thing happineds. ok well im tired of all this stupid stuff and so im going to yell back when they yell at me. i just got yelled at and slaped. so i learned it best to just stop talking all together. well i would do what they told me to do and then get yell at because i did it wrong. or i missed a spot. do it again and then just stay in my room. in perfict silence untill told to do something else. i avoided thim at any cost. i would just sit there and get lost in my own dreams, my own storys and fanisys. i was a lost confused angry child that was hurting on the inside. and soon after that i showed on the out side as well. well i was TOLED yet AGAIN that we were moving and i said im leaving. i moved with my dad. but i was still wonded. i singled my self out. made myself disapper. then oneday somthing happend in school. i had to go to a phsiceatric hospital. they told me i have angziety. mom called i told her. she said no you dont who told you that??? well not only did i read after that, that she had been taking me to see people for angziety secnce i was 7 but i had to go to a hospital when i was liveing with thim because i had a bad attack and passed out. nice… so my mom was liying to me now. i was finished. i was angry and i knew at who i was angry at. mom and step dad. targets. pined to there forhead in my mind. i had stoped beleaving there was a god. i wanted revenge. i wanted to make thim feal how they made me feal. utterly alone in the world. i wanted them to see there angel sitting in a corner with brokin wings and crying black tears as she whachs the devil inside thim grow.well i wrote thim an e-mail long terible e-mail about what they did to me. the wonde that they gave me still as deep as space. my story is still being writen. im writeing my life but unfortunalty im wrighting it in pin and cant erase my mistakes. well hey. i havent told you any of the really bad parts. because i dont think you would want to hear thim. but even though its been a while. that wound, that memory of my mom crushing my heart, my sole. my life. that will mever be erased. in fact. it was so bed i cant remember a time when we had a good time to gether. so now when i die. the earth will be standed with the blood of my inocence. just like all the other girls and boys being killed right now as we speak. and nobodys helping thim. nobodys noticing. and by the time my great grand kids. have there kids. and the world has cleaned up. the memory and scares and inocent blood shed. will have alreadyy stained the earth. hell the earth is already stained. now were talking about wine being spilt on the a white carpet and you can never get it out and everybody can see it and just think. eww thats nasty. well thats what the worlds going to be like. im just one in 40000000000000000000000000000000000 what ever. that asked for help. im about 1 in 4000 who actually got it. now im just one girl. trying to help 40000000000000000000000000000000000 other girls/boys. why cant other people join in? i know we are in the war and everything. and we cant leave. but still. send the troups. but the people that are still here in america stop sitting on your fat asses and help your country. the government dosnt show you everything. in fact they will lie to you if they think the truth is going to bring panic. there not going to come to your house and say hey come on theres america to save. no. thats your chouce. make the right one. though. please…. someone i begg you. there are teens and kids out there dieing and screaming for help. maybe not out loud in voice. im talking about in there eyes. in there heart. in there body languie. all you people have to do is look. and help. its not that doing and im younger than you guys.

peace to the world, love to your heart

By: true Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:31:31 +0000 Don’t believe one optimistic word from any public figure about the economy or humanity in general. They are all part of the problem. Its like a game of Monopoly. In America, the richest 1% now hold 1/2 OF ALL UNITED STATES WEALTH. Unlike ‘lesser’ estimates, this includes all stocks, bonds, cash, and material assets held by America’s richest 1%. Even that filthy pig Oprah acknowledged that it was at about 50% in 2006. Naturally, she put her own ‘humanitarian’ spin on it. Calling attention to her own ‘good will’. WHAT A DISGUSTING HYPOCRITE SLOB. THE RICHEST 1% HAVE LITERALLY MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. Don’t fall for all of their ‘humanitarian’ CRAP. ITS A SHAM. THESE PEOPLE ARE CAUSING THE SAME PROBLEMS THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT. Ask any professor of economics. Money does not grow on trees. The government can’t just print up more on a whim. At any given time, there is a relative limit to the wealth within ANY economy of ANY size. So when too much wealth accumulates at the top, the middle class slip further into debt and the lower class further into poverty. A similar rule applies worldwide. The world’s richest 1% now own over 40% of ALL WORLD WEALTH. This is EVEN AFTER you account for all of this ‘good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS from celebrities and executives. ITS A SHAM. As they get richer and richer, less wealth is left circulating beneath them. This is the single greatest underlying cause for the current US recession. The middle class can no longer afford to sustain their share of the economy. Their wealth has been gradually transfered to the richest 1%. One way or another, we suffer because of their incredible greed. We are talking about TRILLIONS of dollars. Transfered FROM US TO THEM. Over a period of about 27 years. Thats Reaganomics for you. The wealth does not ‘trickle down’ as we were told it would. It just accumulates at the top. Shrinking the middle class and expanding the lower class. Causing a domino effect of socio-economic problems. But the rich will never stop. They will never settle for a reasonable share of ANYTHING. They will do whatever it takes to get even richer. Leaving even less of the pie for the other 99% of us to share. At the same time, they throw back a few tax deductable crumbs and call themselves ‘humanitarians’. IT CAN’T WORK THIS WAY. This is going to end just like a game of Monopoly. The current US recession will drag on for years and lead into the worst US depression of all time. The richest 1% will live like royalty while the rest of us fight over jobs, food, and gasoline. Crime, poverty, and suicide will skyrocket. So don’t fall for all of this PR CRAP from Hollywood, Pro Sports, and Wall Street PIGS. ITS A SHAM. Remember: They are filthy rich EVEN AFTER their tax deductable contributions. Greedy pigs. Now, we are headed for the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time. SEND A “THANK YOU” NOTE TO YOUR FAVORITE MILLIONAIRE. ITS THEIR FAULT. I’m not discounting other factors like China, sub-prime, or gas prices. But all of those factors combined still pale in comparison to that HUGE transfer of wealth to the rich. Anyway, those other factors are all related and further aggrivated because of GREED. If it weren’t for the OBSCENE distribution of wealth within our country, there never would have been such a market for sub-prime to begin with. Which by the way, was another trick whipped up by greedy bankers and executives. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. The credit industry has been ENDORSED by people like Oprah, Ellen, Dr Phil, and many other celebrities. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for their ‘good will’ BS. ITS A LIE. If you fall for it, then you’re a fool. If you see any real difference between the moral character of a celebrity, politician, attorney, or executive, then you’re a fool. WAKE UP PEOPLE. The 1% club will always say or do whatever it takes to get as rich as possible. Without the slightest regard for anything or anyone but themselves. Vioxx. Their idea. Sub-prime. Their idea. NAFTA. Their idea. Outsourcing. Their idea. The commercial lobbyist. Their idea. The multi-million dollar lawsuit. Their idea. $200 cell phone bills. Their idea. $200 basketball shoes. Their idea. $30 late fees. Their idea. $30 NSF fees. Their idea. $20 DVDs. Their idea. Subliminal advertising. Their idea. The MASSIVE campaign to turn every American into a brainwashed credit card, pharmaceutical, love-sick, celebrity junkie. Their idea. All of which concentrate the world’s wealth and resources and wreak havok on society. All of which have been CREATED AND ENDORSED by celebrities, athletes, and executives. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for their ‘ good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS. ITS A SHAM. NOTHING BUT TAX DEDUCTABLE PR CRAP. Bottom line: The richest 1% will soon tank the largest economy in the world. It will be like nothing we’ve ever seen before. and thats just the beginning. Greed will eventually tank every major economy in the world. Causing millions to suffer and die. Oprah, Angelina, Brad, Bono, and Bill are not part of the solution. They are part of the problem. EXTREME WEALTH HAS MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. WITHOUT WORLD PROSPERITY, THERE WILL NEVER BE WORLD PEACE OR ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL. Of course, the rich will throw a fit and call me a madman. Of course, their ignorant fans will do the same. You have to expect that. But I speak the truth. If you don’t believe me, then copy this entry and run it by any professor of economics or socio-economics. Then tell a friend. Call the local radio station. Re-post this entry or put it in your own words. Be one of the first to predict the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time and explain its cause. WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.

By: RM3 Frisker FTN Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:03:34 +0000 Turning the tables – the next “Yes We Can” YouTube video will feature Obama speaking while Iraqi musicians sing/speak:

* Yes. We. Can. have democracy now that the US Military has overthrown the Stalinist Saddam
* Yes. We. Can. decide our own way now that the US Military has defeated the Baathists and Al Qaeda in Iraq
* Yes. We. Can. have peace after twenty years of war now that the US Military has brought stability to Iraq
* Yes. We. Can … be free as the American Slaves were freed by Lincoln

Premature withdrawal from Iraq would do to the Middle East what the withdrawal of the Union Army did to the South, leading to a hundred years of oppression.

By: mike charlton Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:43:59 +0000 I don’t think we’ll have to have many more Ron Paul discussions. While under Texas law he can seek both the presidential nomination and reelection to his congressional seat, it would be very difficult to do both, especially since he has a GOP opponent for the March 4 primary who himself is an elected official though an admittedly minor one. (City council in Friendswood Texas, a Houston suburb. By March 4, the GOP race will be over.

By: dontbother Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:26:26 +0000 I agree that Obama is inspiring and charismatic and that he is probably the most electable of all the candidates in any party. But this video does nothing for me except make me think of all those deluded people singing “Do They Know It’s Christmas?” and “We are the world” or whatever their Utopian messages were. It’s sad to think that so many youngsters out there believe that their musical heroes can change the world for the better. It’s sad to think that all Obama really has to offer is the mantra of change and ephemera of hope. People have been hoping for justice and peace and freedom and full bellies for millennia, but in vain. Singing a song just ain’t gonna do the trick.

It’s not that I don’t want change and inspiration in the White House. It’s just that Camelot was a myth in the 15th century and in the 20th century, and the Camelot that Obama promises beginning in 2009 is just another myth. Obama is only one man. He won’t be able to change anything of substance. The government is bigger than he is, and unless he has the cooperation of all the people who actually make the government work every day, he’ll be only a talking head like the Wizard of Oz. If the people who work for him help him run the country, he won’t be able to change anything: bureaucracies and bureaucrats don’t like change.

If I were going to vote, I’d vote for him, but I don’t see the point, I’m sorry to say. That’s why I left the USA twenty-five years ago and have no intention of returning. I saw George W. Bush coming when America’s foolish masses elected Ronald Reagan the first time. I’d say that people get the leaders they deserve, and if you don’t watch out, you’re very likely to get both McCain and Huckabee. And you’d deserve ‘em too.

By: tony parker Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:20:59 +0000 I can’t help thinking that a Ron Paul America would be a cold and lonely place, a Fortress America.

By: VVB Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:05:12 +0000 That said, Ron Paul makes many, many good points, I just don’t think you can achieve what he wants the WAY he wants it. You can oppose force with force, creating more chaos, or can transmute it, as you are mindful of its quality and rhythm. In due time. In due way.

By: VVB Sat, 09 Feb 2008 13:57:32 +0000 Ron Paul wants to eliminate dual citizenship. That would destroy the lives of 45 million Americans and countless more that want or should become Americans because they have lived here so long. I’m one of them, I’ve been eagerly waiting for my beloved adoptive country to change so I can actually mean what I will be made to swear if I naturalize.

If I can’t have dual citizenship, I can never become an American. It wouldn’t be real. I would lose too much, in my heart and in my pocket because I would lose the ability to work is 30 countries or so (I’m European) I’m an artist and I can’t afford to do that.

It would also not reflect who I am. I want to be an American because I love my American husband, my American son, my American in-laws, my American friends.I’ve been here so long that I am an American in my heart wether I like it or not.

But why should I renounce to the other half of me? Or how dare anyone ask my son to renounce to his half-European side? It’s the same with languages, I speak five, why would anyone want to make me speak only one. The human heart is huge, I’m perfectly capable of loving two countries with all of it,; well, three, because my mother is French and I always have loved France too. I love three countries, and if you force me to chose one legally, I will still love three countries and you will make me completely unhappy, for what, so you can feel safe? Hear me, you will never feel safe like this. Only loving more you can feel safe, not less. And there’s so much we are all missing out on. Go find a cave, if you want. I want to move forward into the twenty first century. We have now the capacity for love and peace. Let’s use it.

By: anon4rp Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:57:29 +0000 An interesting video on Corruption by Mike Gravel’s campaign:

By: anon4rp Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:09:03 +0000 Meros
“I know a lot of internet people are keen on Ron Paul, but honestly I’m not sure the rest of the world is looking for America to turn even more insular and isolated.”

Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. His America would trade with other nations, but not intervene into their internal affairs.

“Sure, no-one likes America invading other countries either, but withdrawing from the global community is taking things a bit far.”

I wouldn’t say we’d be withdrawing from the world stage. We would simply stop invading other countries, while still being a part of the world via our economy and trade.

“I don’t think dismantling government is a solution to dealing with institutional rot and incompetence – at least not one without serious side effects that are going to be hard to predict.”

I think it’s the most effective solution. There may be serious side effects that will be hard to predict, but at least it will solve the problem of institutional rot and incompetence, as there will be no institution left to rot in incompetence. Any other sort of solution will be piecemeal at best and co-opted by existing special interests at worst.

“I can’t help thinking that a Ron Paul America would be a cold and lonely place, a Fortress America.”

Hardly. America would still be open for trade. We just would stop invading other countries, which you must admit, is pretty bad for business.

By: Wisniesw Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:20:33 +0000 As much as I disapprove of Obama and his dangerous utopianism, this ad is truly amazing. I haven’t seen anything like it in years. Thanks for posting it.

By: Merus Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:52:30 +0000 I know a lot of internet people are keen on Ron Paul, but honestly I’m not sure the rest of the world is looking for America to turn even more insular and isolated. Sure, no-one likes America invading other countries either, but withdrawing from the global community is taking things a bit far. I don’t think dismantling government is a solution to dealing with institutional rot and incompetence – at least not one without serious side effects that are going to be hard to predict.

I can’t help thinking that a Ron Paul America would be a cold and lonely place, a Fortress America.

On the other hand, the Internet did Snakes on a Plane no favours, so perhaps I don’t have to be concerned.

By: slag Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:20:22 +0000 We need a 2008 Election Cycle Grammy Awards so we can pick between Obama’s “Yes, We Can” and McCain’s “Ba ba ba ba bomb Iran” for best music video.

By: anon4rp Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:18:19 +0000 There is one candidate who has both experience and the potential to truly change Washington.

Here’s what he said in a speech, long ago…

Before the US House of Representatives, September 19, 1984

Mr. Speaker, I shall be soon leaving the House and have asked for this special order to make a few comments regarding the problems our nation faces and the actions needed to correct them. Having been honored by the 22nd District of Texas to represent them for four terms, I have grown to appreciate the greatness of this institution. I only wish the actions performed by the Congress in recent years could match the historic importance of this body.

Thousands of men and women have come and gone here in our country’s history, and except for the few, most go unnoticed and remain nameless in the pages of history, as I am sure I will be. The few who are remembered are those who were able to grab the reins of power and, for the most part, use that power to the detriment of the nation. We must remember that achieving power is never the goal sought by a truly free society. Dissipation of power is the objective of those who love liberty. Others, tragically, will be remembered in a negative way for personal scandals. Yet those individuals whose shortcomings prompted the taking of bribes or involvement in illicit sexual activities, have caused no more harm to society than those who used “legitimate” power to infringe upon individual liberty and expand the size of government. Morally the two are closely related. The acceptance of a bribe is a horrible act indeed for a public servant, but reducing liberty is an outrageous act that causes suffering for generations to come.

Since the time of our founding, few who have come to the Congress have been remembered for championing the cause of freedom. This is a sign of a declining nation and indicates that respect for freedom is on the wane.

Serving here has been a wonderful experience, and the many friendships will be cherished. I am, however, the first to admit the limited impact I’ve had on the legislative process. By conventional wisdom, I am “ineffective,” unable to trade votes, and champion anyone’s special privilege – even my own district’s. It places me in a lonely category here in Washington. If the political career is not the goal sought, possibly the measuring of “effectiveness” should be done by using a different standard.

The most I can hope for is that someday a suggestion I’ve made is remembered: that the debate would shift to a different plane. Instead of asking which form of intervention and planning government should impose, perhaps someday Congress will debate intervention versus nonintervention, government versus voluntary planning, U.S. sovereignty versus internationalism – the pros and cons of true liberty. Today the debate basically is only that of deciding who will be the victims and who the beneficiaries. I hope the hours of debate over the mechanisms of the political system orchestrated by the special interests will give way to this more important debate on freedom. The lack of this debate was my greatest disappointment. Only rarely did I see small fragments of this discussion, and then merely as a tactic for short-term gain rather than because of a sincere belief in the principles of liberty and the Constitution.

Some have said my approach is not practical, but most concede, “At least he’s consistent.” Since I first came here in 1976, the number of lobbyists has doubled and the national debt has tripled – $550 billion to $1.59 trillion – to me a most impractical trend. Business cycles, unemployment, inflation, high interest rates, and trade wars are the real impracticalities brought about by unwise political and economic policies. I’ve been impressed over the years by those who concede to me the consistency of my views, yet evidently reject them in favor of inconsistent views. Who, I might ask, is served by the politicians of inconsistency, the special interests or the general welfare?

The petty partisan squabbles that are today more numerous and more heated serve no useful function. The rhetoric now becoming personal is not designed to solve problems, nor does it show a correct perception of our country’s problems. All are motivated by good intentions, but that cannot suffice. The narrow partisan squabbles are a natural consequence of an intellectual bankruptcy, whereby correct solutions are not offered for our economic problems. The “good intentions” prompts those involved to “do something.” It seems that narrow partisanship on the House floor contributes nothing to the solutions of today’s problems.

Sadly, I have found that individual Members, even though we represent our half-million constituents, are much less important than most of us would like to believe. The elite few who control the strings of power are the only ones who really count in the legislative process. Votes, of course, occur routinely after heated debate by all those who want to ventilate. But as C. Northcote Parkinson pointed out, the length of debate on an issue is inversely proportional to the importance of an issue. Many times debate is done either for therapy or as a ritual to force Members to make public commitments to those who wield the power, a mere litmus test of loyalty, thus qualifying some quietly to receive largess for their particular district.

More often than not, the floor debates are a charade without real issues being dealt with – a mere chance for grandstanding. Budgetary votes are meaningless in that continuing resolutions and supplemental appropriations are all that count. If covert aid to a nation is voted down, the CIA and the administration in power can find the means to finance whatever is desired. Emergencies are declared, finances are hidden, discretionary funds are found, foreign governments are used, and policy as desired is carried out, regardless of the will of the people expressed by Congress.

On occasion, a program requested by the administration is “stopped” or voted down. But this doesn’t really change the course of events – the “price” is merely raised. The vote can be reversed on the House floor or in the conference, and the “enlightened” Member who cast the crucial vote will receive an ample reward for his or her district. These arrangements or deals are routine and accepted practice. The better one is at making them, the higher is one’s “effectiveness” rating and the easier the next election.

Recently, the national Taxpayers’ Union gave me their annual Taxpayers’ Best Friend Award for voting for the least amount of taxes and spending of any Member of Congress. I realize this does not qualify as a news event, but I have, over the years, tried to emphasize how dangerous is the problem of overspending and have voted accordingly. This past year, I am recorded as having voted against 99 percent of all spending. To me that means voting for the taxpayer 99 percent of the time and against the tyranny of the state at the same percentage. I must confess, though, to the possible disappointment of the anarchists, that I endorse more than one percent of our expenditures – possibly even 20 percent. Due to the seriousness of the problems we face, I believe it’s crucial to make the point that programs are bloated, and overspending, deficits and monetary inflation are a mortal threat to a free society. Those not willing to vote for the cuts either must believe they are not a threat or do not care if they are. I suspect the former to be the case.

Deficits are in themselves very harmful, but it’s what they represent that we must be concerned about. Deficits are a consequence of spending, and this tells us something about the amount of power gravitating into the hands of a centralized authority. As the deficits grow, so does the power of the state. Correspondingly, individual freedom is diminished.

It’s difficult for one who loves true liberty and utterly detests the power of the state to come to Washington for a period of time and not leave a cynic. Yet I am not; for I believe in the goodness of my fellow man and am realistic enough to understand the shortcomings of all human beings. However, I do believe that if the Democrats and the Republicans played more baseball and legislated a lot less, the country would be much better off. I am convinced the annual baseball game played by the Republicans and the Democrats must be considered one of the most productive events in which the Members of Congress participate.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take some time to point out some of the contradictions that I have observed in my four terms in the Congress. These I have found frustrating and exasperating and, if others agree, possibly this recognition will someday lead to policies designed to correct them. I find these contradictions in three areas: foreign policy, economic policy and social issues.

I have trouble believing that the foreign policy of the past 70 years has served the best interests of the United States. The policy of international intervention has been followed during this time, regardless of the party in power. The traditional American policy of strategic independence and neutrality based on strength has been replaced by an international policy of sacrifices, policy that has given us nearly a century of war. The last two wars were fought without formal declaration and without the goal of victory in mind. There are many specific examples to show how irrational this interventionist policy is.

We pump $40 billion a year into the Japanese economy by providing for essentially all of Japan’s defense. At the same time, Japan out-competes us in the market, in effect subsidizing their exports, which then undermines our domestic steel and auto industries. The result: greater deficits for us, higher taxes, more inflation, higher interest rates, and a cry by our producers for protectionism. We insist that Western Europe take our Pershing missiles. We get the bill, and the hostility of the people of Western Europe, and then act surprised that the Soviets pull out of arms negotiations and send more modern nuclear submarines to our coastline. It’s a sure guarantee that any conflict in Europe – even one between two socialist nations – will be our conflict.

Loyally standing by our ally Israel is in conflict with satisfying the Arab interests that are always represented by big business in each administration. We arm Jordan and Egypt, rescue the PLO (on two occasions), and guarantee that the America taxpayer will be funding both sides of any armed conflict in the Middle East. This policy prompts placing Marines, armed with guns without bullets, between two waning factions. Our F15s shooting down our F-5s in the Persian Gulf War is our idea of neutrality and getting others to test our equipment. America’s interests are forgotten under these circumstances.

We condemn the use of poison gas by Iraq at the same time we aid Iraq, along with the Soviets, in preventing an Iranian victory, forgetting that Iraq started the war. Inconsistently, the administration pressures Congress to manufacture new nerve gas so we have something with which to go to the Soviets and draw up some unworkable treaty regarding war gases. We allocate low-interest loans through the Export-Import Bank to build a pipeline for Iraq, giving huge profits to Shultz Bechtel Corp., while hurting our domestic oil producers.

On the day we “stood firm” against Communist aggression in this hemisphere by invading Grenada, our president apologized to those liberal House Members who were “soft on communism” and pleaded for their vote to ensure the passage of the IMF bill, so the “Communist dictators” can continue to receive taxpayers’ dollars – dollars used to support Castro’s adventurism in the Caribbean and in Central America.

Our official policy currently is to be tough on communism, but at the same time promote low-interest loans, allowing Red China to buy nuclear technology, F-16′s and other military technology – all this by the strongest anti-Communist administration that we’ve had in decades. We participate in the bailout of bankrupt Argentina as she continues to loan money to Castro’s Cuba, which then prompts us to send men, money and weapons to counteract the spread of communism formed by Castro. It’s doubtful if any of these loans will be repaid, and the military equipment and technology will probably end up being used against us at a later date. We talk about a close alliance with Taiwan while subsidizing their hated enemy, Red China.

We subsidize Red China’s nuclear technology; at the same time, we allow Jane Fonda to ruin ours.

We continuously sacrifice ourselves to the world by assuming the role of world policeman, which precipitates international crises on a regular basis, all the while neglecting our own defenses. New planes go overseas while our Air National Guard is forced to use planes 20 years old. We neglect our defenses by signing treaties like Salt I and the ABM Treaty that prevent us from building a non-nuclear defense system – and follow Salt 11 without even signing it. The result: a massive arms race based on a doctrine of mutual assured destruction.

Praising the greatness of the Vietnam veterans and honoring them can never remove the truth of our failed policy that took us there. Resurrecting heroes will never erase the pain and suffering of an interventionist foreign policy that prompted unnecessary military activities and a no-win strategy.

There are 42 wars now going on in the world, and it’s reported we’re involved in many of them – on both sides. We have troops in a total of 121 countries. National security is used as justification for all this activity, but rarely is it directly involved.

Our Export-Import Bank financed the building of the Kama River truck plant in Russia – trucks then used in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan over a road built by our own Corps of Engineers. Our response? Draft registration and an Olympic boycott!

In pleading for the MX funds, the administration explains we need it as a bargaining chip. I guess to bargain away to the Soviets whom we can’t trust anyway. We even modify the MX to conform with the Salt II Treaty – a treaty we never even signed.

If we look closely at the record, we find the conservative hawk is frequently the one who appeases and subsidizes the Communists, and never starts the war; the liberal dove is the one more likely to involve us in a war to protect democracy and stop Communist expansion. Images play tricks on us and policy is achieved by deception. Is this a mere coincidence, or is it contrived by those dedicated to internationalism?

The carnage of the 20th Century, as compared to the 19th Century, must someday make us aware of the difference between the two policies pursued. Does the modem age mandate that we reject a policy of self-interest and non-intervention, or is it just possible that worthwhile policies are of value, regardless of the age in which we live? It’s an important question, because it will determine whether or not we will enjoy peace and prosperity in the generations to come.

Our economic policy is no less contradictory. It’s fair to say that even with all the good intentions of the Members, the planned welfare state has been a complete and miserable failure. For the most part, the programs achieve exactly opposite results from those sought. There is a limit to how long the economy can tolerate these insults before we all suffer from the severe consequences. What we say and do are in conflict with each other. We talk boldly of balanced budgets, full employment, prosperity, low interest rates, and no inflation. So we either do not believe, as a body, what we say, or we are inept in our ability to pursue and achieve the goals that we seek. Either way, the results remain the same.

The economic contradictions are numerous. Conservatives, for years, preached balanced budgets – until in charge – then the deficits soared to $200 billion per year. Liberal big spenders who led the way to runaway spending quickly excoriate conservative deficits and nothing happens; the deficit financing continues and accelerates.

Campaigns are won on promising tax cuts; some are given, but are quickly canceled out by numerous tax increases associated with accelerated federal spending.

Congress and the administration are quick to blame the Federal Reserve System for high interest rates and do nothing about the huge deficits. Congress totally ignores their responsibility in maintaining the integrity of the money and refuses to exert their rightful authority over the Federal Reserve. We routinely preach about helping the poor, then plunder the working class to subsidize foreign socialist dictators and the welfare rich through abusive taxation and inflation.

Our government pursues a policy of currency debasement, causing steadily rising prices, and blindly treats only the symptoms while punishing, through regulations and taxation, those capable and willing to take care of themselves.

Vocal support for free trade is routinely heard, as protectionist measures march on. The steel, sugar, textile, shoe, copper, and automobile industries all come for help, and we do nothing to remove the burden of taxation, inflation, high interest rates and labor laws that put our companies at a competitive disadvantage. Our protectionist measures then hurt our trade partners, precipitating our need to send them more foreign aid to help out their weak economies and to relieve their debt burden.

Archconservatives champion tobacco subsidies, which are criticized by archconservatives who champion milk subsidies. Government then spends millions of dollars to regulate the tobacco industry and points out the hazards of smoking.

A liberal champion of the peace movement and disarmament pushes for the B-1 bomber as a reasonable alternative – and because it’s good for the economy – the bomber, by coincidence, to be built in the Senator’s home state.

The well-intentioned do-gooder legislates minimum wage laws to help the poor and minorities, causing higher unemployment in the precise groups who were intended to be the beneficiaries.

We learned nothing from the Depression years and continue to pay farmers to raise crops not needed, then pay them to stop planting. Our policies drive prices of commodities down, so we prop up the prices and buy up the surpluses. The consumer suffers, the farmer suffers, the country suffers, but our policies never change; we just legislate more of the same programs that cause the problems in the first place.

Our steel plants are closing down, so we pursue protectionism and stupidly continue to subsidize the building of steel plants throughout the world through our foreign-aid projects.

We pay for bridges and harbors throughout the world and neglect our own. If we feel compulsion to spend and waste money, it would make more sense at least to waste it at home. We build highways around the world, raise gasoline taxes here, and routinely dodge potholes on our own highways.

Why do we cut funding for day-care centers and Head Start programs before cutting aid to the Communists, Socialists, and international bankers?

A substantial number of businessmen demand the rigors of the free market for their competitors, and socialism/fascism for themselves.

Economic interventionism, a philosophy in itself and not a compromise with anything, is the cause of all these contradictions in the economy. Rejection of government planning, controlled by the powerful special interests, at the expense of the general welfare is necessary, and even inevitable, for that system will fall under its own weight. The question that remains is whether or not it will be replaced with a precise philosophy of the free market, rejecting all special interests and fiat money, or with a philosophy of socialism. The choice when the time comes should not be difficult, but freedom lovers have no reason for complacency or optimism.

Social issues are handled in a contradictory manner as well. A basic misunderstanding of the nature of rights and little respect for the Constitution has given us a hodgepodge of social problems that worsen each day.

At one time, we bused our children long distances from their homes to force segregation; now we bus them, against their will, to force integration.

We subsidize flood insurance in the low-lying areas of the country, prompting people to build where market-oriented insurance companies would have prevented it. When flooding problems worsen, land control and condemnation procedures become the only solution.

The Supreme Court now rules that large landowners must, against their wishes, sell to others to break up their holdings. This is being done in the name of “eminent domain.” This is land reform “à la U.S.A.”

Certain individual groups, against the intent of the Constitution and the sentiments of a free society, agitate to make illegal privately owned guns used for self-defense. At the same time, they increase the power of the state whose enforcement occurs with massive increase in government guns – unconstitutionally obtained at the expense of freedom. Taking away the individual’s right to own weapons of self-defense and giving unwarranted power to a police state can hardly be considered progress.

We have strict drug laws written by those who generously use the drug alcohol. Our laws drive up the price of drugs a thousandfold, to the delight of the dealers, the pushers, and terrorist nations around the world who all reap huge illegal profits. Crimes are committed to finance the outrageous prices, and drug usage never goes down. Enforcement costs soar, and its success remains “mysteriously” elusive. The whole system creates an underground crime world worth billions of dollars; and addicts must then entice others to join, getting new customers to finance their habits – forever compounding a social problem epidemic in proportion. Any new suggestions for changing our drug laws that is, liberalizing them – is seen as political suicide by the hypocritical politicians and a society legally hooked on alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, aspirin and Valium.

Talk is cheap about freedom and civil liberties, while privacy and individual liberty are continuously undermined and government force is used to protect the privileges and illegal demands placed on government, by the special interest groups. Computers are routinely used to enforce draft registration, involving Selective Service, IRS, Social Security, HHS and ice cream parlor lists.

The shortcomings of South Africa’s apartheid system are denounced continuously by the same politicians who ignore the fact that, in Communist countries, dissidents aren’t segregated; they are shot or sent to concentration camps. In comparison, segregation is seen as more vicious than the exiling and the killing of the political dissidents in Russia. South Africa, for their defective system of civil liberties, is banned from the Olympics, while we beg the murdering Communists to come.

Government responsibility to protect life and liberty becomes muddled when the government and courts chosen to protect them, under the guise of privacy and civil liberties, totally ignore the real issue. The abortionist who makes a fortune dropping fetuses and infants into buckets, instead of being restrained by government, is encouraged by the courts and the law. Some show greater concern for the lives of seals than for the life of a human baby.

The government writes thousands of pages of regulations designed to protect workers in private industry – without proof of any beneficial results – and at the same time 50,000-plus are killed on government engineered and operated highways.

Good conservatives explain why guns and teachers shouldn’t be registered, and beg and plead and coerce the government into registering their own kids for the draft.

We have seen cases where harmless elderly women, having committed no act of violence, are arrested for: one, defending against an intruder with the use of a “Saturday night special”; two, raising marijuana in the yard to use for relief of severe arthritic pain; and three, selling chances in a numbers game – the fact that governments run the biggest crap games seems to have no moral significance.

Federal officials – IRS agents and drug enforcement agents – have been known to destroy the property and lives of totally innocent people as homes are entered mistakenly without search warrants. Confiscation of property without due process of law is becoming more commonplace everyday with the tactics of the IRS.

The products produced by businessmen are regulated to the extreme by so-called liberals who would never accept similar regulations on the products of the mind and the media. Yet the ill effect of bad economic ideas and bad education is much more damaging to one’s economic health than are the products manufactured in a totally free and unregulated market. The conservative’s answer to regulating ideas in a similar way to regulating goods and services is the risk of pointing out this inconsistency.


Contradictions are all about us, but we must realize they are merely the manifestations of more basic problems. Some of these problems are general, others specific; but all are a consequence of the precise ideology to which the nation’s intellectuals ascribe. Understanding this is imperative if we ever expect to reverse the trend toward statism in which we find ourselves.

Our government officials continue to endorse, in general, economic interventionism, interventionist control of individuals, a careless disregard for our property rights, and an interventionist foreign policy. The ideas of liberty for the individual, freedom for the markets, both domestic and international, sound money, and a foreign policy of strategic independence based on strength are no longer popularly endorsed by our national leaders. Yet support by many Americans for these policies exists. The current conflict is over which view will prevail.

The concept of rights is rarely defined, since there is minimal concern for them as an issue in itself. Rights have become nothing more than the demands of special-interest groups to use government coercion to extract goods and services from one group for the benefit of another. The moral concept of one’s natural right to life and liberty without being molested by State intervention in one’s pursuit of happiness is all but absent in Washington. Carelessly the Congress has accepted the concept of “public interest” as being superior to “individual liberty” in directing their actions. But the “public” is indefinite and its definition varies depending on who and which special interest is defining it. It’s used merely as an excuse to victimize one individual for the benefit of another. The dictatorship of the majority, now a reality, is our greatest threat to the concept of equal rights

Careless disregard for liberty allows the government to violate the basic premise of a free society; there shall be no initiation of force by anyone, particularly government. Use of force for personal and national self-defense against initiators of violence is its only proper use in a moral and free society. Unfortunately this premise is rejected – and not even understood – in its entirety in Washington. The result is that we have neither a moral nor a free society.

Rejecting the notion that government should not coerce and force people to act against their wishes prompts Congress to assume the role of central economic and social planner. Government is used for everything from subsidized farming to protecting cab monopolies; from the distribution of food stamps to health care; from fixing the price of labor to fixing the price of gasoline. Always the results are the same, opposite to what was intended: chaos, confusion, inefficiency, additional costs and lines.

The more that is spent on housing or unemployment problems, the worse the housing and unemployment problems become. Proof that centralized economic planning always fails, regardless of the good intentions behind it, is available to us. It is tragic that we continue to ignore it.

Our intervention and meddling to satisfy the powerful well-heeled special interests have created a hostile atmosphere, a vicious struggle for a shrinking economic pie distributed by our ever-growing inefficient government bureaucracy. Regional class, race, age and sex disputes polarize the nation. This probably will worsen until we reject the notion that central planning works.

As nations lose respect for liberty, so too do they lose respect for individual responsibility. Laws are passed proposing no-fault insurance for injuries for which someone in particular was responsible. Remote generations are required to pay a heavy price for violations of civil liberties that occurred to the blacks, to the Indians, and to Japanese-Americans. This is done only at the expense of someone else’s civil liberties and in no way can be justified

Collective rights – group fights, in contrast to individual rights – prompt laws based on collective guilt for parties not responsible for causing any damage. The Superfund is a typical example of punishing innocent people for damages caused by government /business. Under a system of individual rights where initiation of force is prohibited, this would not occur.

Short-run solutions enhance political careers and motivate most legislation in Washington, to the country’s detriment. Apparent economic benefits deceive many Members into supporting legislation that in the long run is devastating to the economy. Politics unfortunately is a short-run game – the next election. Economics is a long-run game and determines the prosperity and the freedoms of the next generation. Sacrificing future wealth for present indulgence is done at the expense of liberty for the individual.

Motivations of those who lead the march toward the totalitarian state can rarely be challenged. Politicians’ good intentions, combined with the illusion of wisdom, falsely reassure the planners that good results will be forthcoming. Freedom endorses a humble approach toward the idea that one group of individuals by some quirk of nature knows what is best for another. Personal preferences are subjectively decided upon. Degrees of risk that free individuals choose to take vary from one individual to another. Liability and responsibility for one’s own acts should never be diminished by government edicts. Voluntary contracts should never be interfered with in a free society except for their enforcement. Trust in a free society even with its imperfections – if we’re to strive for one, must be superior to our blind faith in government’s ability to solve our problems for us.

Government in a free society is recognized to be nothing more than in embodiment of the people. The sovereignty is held by the people. A planned coercive society talks vaguely of how government provides this and that, as if government were equivalent to the Creator. Distribution is one thing – production is another. Centralized control of the distribution of wealth by an impersonal government that ignores the prescribed role of guaranteeing the equal protection of liberty ensures that one day freedom will disappear and take with it the wealth that only free men can create.

Today the loss of the people’s sovereignty is clearly evident. Lobbyists are important, if not the key figures, in all legislation – their numbers are growing exponentially. It’s not an accident that the lobbyist’s and chief bureaucrat’s salaries are higher than the Congressman’s – they are literally “more important.” The salary allocation under today’s conditions are correct. Special interests have replaced the concern that the Founders had for the general welfare. Conference committees’ intrigues are key to critical legislation. The bigger the government, the higher the stakes, the more lucrative the favors granted. Vote trading is seen as good politics, not as an immoral act. The errand-boy mentality is ordinary – the defender of liberty is seen as bizarre. The elite few who control our money, our foreign policy, and the international banking institutions – in a system designed to keep the welfare rich in diamonds and Mercedes – make the debates on the House and Senate floors nearly meaningless.

The monetary system is an especially important area where the people and Congress have refused to assume their responsibilities. Maintaining honest money – a proper role for government – has been replaced by putting the counterfeiters in charge of the government printing press. This system of funny money provides a convenient method whereby Congress’ excessive spending is paid for by the creation of new money. Unless this is addressed, which I suppose it will be in due time, monetary and banking crises will continue and get much worse during this decade.

Congress assumes that it can make certain groups economically better off by robbing others of their wealth. The business and banker welfare recipient justifies the existence of the system by claiming that it is good for jobs, profits and sound banking. The welfare poor play on the sympathies of others, and transfer programs based on government force and violence are justified as “necessary” to provide basic needs to all – at the expense of liberty needed to provide for the prosperity everyone desires.

Government cannot make people morally better by laws that interfere with nonviolent personal acts that produce no victims. Disapproving of another’s behavior is not enough to justify a law prohibiting it. Any attempt to do so under the precepts of liberty is an unwarranted use of government force.

Congress reflects prevailing attitudes developed by an educational system and the conventional media, and in this sense Congress rarely leads, but is merely pushed and manipulated by public opinion. This is even done with scientific use of public-opinion polls. “Show me the direction the crowd is going and I will lead them,” is sadly the traditional cry of the politician. Statesmanship is not the road to reelection. Statesmanship is reserved for a rare few at particular times in history unknown to most of us. Leadership in great movements is infrequently found in official capacities. Lech Walesa, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, et al., are not legal officials, but are nevertheless great leaders.

Today the deficits, the skyrocketing real interest rates, total government spending, and the expansionist foreign policy have delivered to us a crisis of confidence. The politicians’ worries and concerns on the short run reflect the lack of plans made for the future. The interest rates on 30-year bonds tell a lot about the trust in the economic system and especially the integrity of the money.

It’s become traditional, especially during the last 70 years, for foreign policy to be pawned off as “bipartisan,” meaning no dissent is permissible and all true debate is squelched. Congress, it is said, has no role in formulating foreign policy, for the Constitution gives this power to the president. Nowhere is this written. Many more powers and responsibilities are to be assumed by the Congress than by the president in the foreign policy area, according to my reading of the Constitution. Monopoly power for a president to wage war without declaration, as was done in Korea and Vietnam, is a blatant attack on constitutionally guaranteed liberty. I hope the caution shown by the Congress in recent years will prevail, yet the Grenada invasion was not reassuring.

Unfortunately, economic egalitarianism has taken over as the goal of most congressional legislation. Any equality achieved will come about by leveling – a lowering of everyone’s standard of living – not by raising it. It is achieved by ignoring the sanctity of the voluntary contract and the prohibitions that should exist against government initiating force against the citizen. This concept must be rejected if we’re to reverse the trend toward the Orwellian state.

Many Members of Congress defend liberty, but only in minute bits and pieces as it appears convenient. I find in Washington the total absence of a consistent defense of liberty, as this principle applies to the marketplace, our personal lives, and international relations. Bits and pieces of liberty will never suffice for the defense of an entire concept. Consistency in defense of freedom is necessary to counteract the consistent aggressive militancy of interventionism, whether it’s of liberal or conservative flavor.

Government today perpetuates violence in epidemic proportions. Most of the time, the mere “threat” of violence by the agencies, the bureaucrats, the officials in charge of writing the final drafts of legislation, is enough to intimidate the staunchest resister. Courts, legal costs, government arrests, government guns, and long-term imprisonments have created a society of individuals who meekly submit to the perpetual abuse of our liberties. All this in the name of the “social good,” “stability,” “compromise,” the “status quo,” and the “public interest.” The IRS, the EPA and other agencies now carry guns. The colonists would have cringed at the sight of such abuse of our rights to live free. They complained about a standing army that carried guns; we now have a standing bureaucracy that carries guns.

Government today has accumulated massive power that can be used to suppress the people. How is it that we grant our government power to do things that we as individuals would never dream of doing ourselves, declaring such acts as stealing wealth from one another as immoral, and unconscionable? If a free nation’s sovereignty is held in the hands of the people, how is it that the state now can do more than the people can do themselves? Planning our people’s lives, the economy, and meddling throughout the world change the role of government from the guarantor of liberty to the destroyer of liberty.

Our problems have become international in scope due to the nature of the political system and our policies. This need not be, but it is. The financial problems of the nation, although clearly linked to our deficits and domestic monetary policy, cannot be separated from the international schemes of banking as promoted by the IMF, the World Bank and the Development Banks. It is much clearer to me now, having been in Washington for seven years, how our banking and monetary policies are closely linked to our foreign policy and controlled by men not motivated to protect the sovereignty of America, nor the liberties of our citizens. It’s not that they are necessarily inclined to deliberately destroy our freedom, but they place a higher priority on internationalism and worldwide inflation – a system of government and finance that serves the powerful elite.

All the military might in the world will not protect us from deteriorating economies and protectionism, and will not ensure peace. Policies are much more important than apparent military strength. The firepower used in Vietnam and the lives sacrificed did nothing to overcome the interventionist policies of both the Republicans and the Democratic administrations. When foreign policies are right, money sound, trade free, and respect for liberty prevalent, strong economies and peace are much more likely to evolve. The armaments race, and the funding of enemies and wealthy allies, only contribute to the fervor with which our tax dollars are churned through the military-industrial complex.

The crisis we face is clearly related to a loss of trust – trust in ourselves, in freedom, in our own government and in our money. We are a litigious welfare society gone mad. Everyone feels compelled to grab whatever he can get from government or by suit. The “something for nothing” obsession rules our every movement, and is in conflict with the other side of man’s nature – that side that values self-esteem and pride of one’s personal achievement. Today the pride of self-reliance and personal achievement is buried by the ego-destroying policies of the planned interventions of big government and replaced by the “satisfaction” of manipulating the political system to one’s own special advantage. Score is kept by counting the federal dollars allocated to the special group or the congressional district to which one belongs. This process cannot continue indefinitely. Something has to give – we must choose either freedom and prosperity or tyranny and poverty.

– Ron Paul

By: joe Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:05:16 +0000 I was on the fence about Barack Obama, but then Scarlett Johnsson and told me to vote for him. Obama ’08.

By: saradsun Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:52:03 +0000 I have been political for 25 years, since my teens. When I went to college in the Fall of 1986, I chose Government (though they changed it to Political Science later) as my major and was active in the organizations on campus and in local and state politics (interning with a Lt. Governor’s office). I then became “just a mother” for many years (5 kids) and really became disillusioned with politics, so much so that I’m embarrassed to say, I didn’t even vote in 2000.

Now, at the age of 39, I feel full of hope and I believe again. Believe in our constitution, believe in our country, believe in the people of our country, believe in the ability of those divided to instead unite. I’ve been watching Obama, as many have, since his speech at the convention in 2004, and everything I see just makes me more convinced that he is the man to lead our nation out of division, torture, and distrust, and into the kind of future that I want for my 5 children. One of hope. One of inspiration. One where people believe they can make a difference and so they try to make a difference.

I found this blog through one of my computer geeky sites (I was in the field for a few years) and I’m glad I did. I enjoyed the previous video you had explaining your reasons for your support of Obama over Hilary. It almost perfectly enunciated the reasons that I had been unable to voice, and instead just “felt.” I’ve supported the works, albeit only in spirit, of the EFF for many years. Now that I’ve found this place, I’m sure I’ll be back to read more.

(and hey, put in a good word for me on the admissions committee would ya? *grin*)

By: anon4rp Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:27:38 +0000 As a Ron Paul supporter, I find Obama’s message of change incredibly appealing. I agree with him on the ends — health care for Americans, peace and diplomacy in the world, but not on the means that he proposes (more government, continued interventionism, albeit for so-called humanitarian reasons).

@Ro: Yes, he is sparse on policy in his speeches, but that’s only because his policies are not that far removed from Mrs. Clinton’s, and thus his best hope for distinguishing himself is via the strength of his inspirational message, since they are pretty much in agreement on the means of implementing those changes. His policies are mostly outlined on his website.

Unfortunately I can’t bring myself to vote for Obama because he is such a strong supporter of abortion rights, which is equivalent to giving doctors the license to kill women’s children on demand. I find that morally untenable and thus cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate. I would much rather see him advocate for community programs (not necessarily federal government funded) to support pregnant young women and facilitate adoption, rather than simply hold the party line on preserving the horrors of Roe v. Wade (a decision wholly uninformed by modern science regarding fetal life).

All that said, he is by far the most inspirational candidate out there in either party. I find myself wishing the my candidate, Ron Paul, had even half the rhetorical ability Mr. Obama has. Alas.

Considering the alternative on the Democratic side, or any other Republican apart from the admittedly long-shot Ron Paul, best of luck to Mr. Obama in this campaign. Regardless of how he plans to implement it, his message of hope and change has great potential to inspire Americans to do good.

By: scott c Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:11:31 +0000 Looks like the Clinton surrogate NOW is trying to swiftboat Obama again:

By: Thatcher Ulrich Tue, 05 Feb 2008 21:36:07 +0000 @Ro:

> How?

1. Vision: Fix politics, heal partisan divides, provide healthcare, restore our standing in the world, economic justice.

2. Inspire others (Yes We Can!)

3. Implement:

Obama embodies all three steps, and puts them in the correct order. Clinton understands number 3, and despite her hard work, experience and good intentions, will lead us into gridlock without the first two.

Here’s an interesting article by George Packer in the New Yorker on this same theme:

By: Kirk Tue, 05 Feb 2008 21:35:07 +0000 @Jardinero1: You missed one important point. Lyrics by Obama. That means performance royalties would accrue to him and him alone.

By: j.c. Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:58:24 +0000 @Ro:

I think the question of ‘how’ is a valid one, but I’d like to propose an answer: that’s for us to come up with.

The Space Age was launched by a truly inspiring speech. Other people–good, smart people, figured out how. But the way was set largely by an inspiring speech and a will to have it happen.

We already have good, smart people. We already have ideas of how to solve our problems. All we really need is to have a vision at the top that it’s *worth* doing and the aid we, as a nation, need to do it. And I think Obama can provide that, both abundantly and in ways the other candidates cannot.

By: Ro Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:33:08 +0000 This is so inspiring; however,the thing that keeps going through my head when I hear him speak is “How?” I just haven’t heard answers there, so the decision for me is still difficult. I already know what needs to be changed. What I really want to know is how a bunch of truly inspiring speeches are going to do it. How will you change it? Not what. How.

By: John J. Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:02:36 +0000 @Jardiner: Do you hold the same requirements for people working the phone banks of the candidates for free, or those who go door to door asking people to go out and vote? Or how about to Lessig himself for saying good things about Obama on his blog?

I hope it was sarcasm, but it has become so hard to tell in the political climate of the past 10+ years…

By: Jardinero1 Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:22:59 +0000 My first thought was does this violate McCain-Feingold?

Those are some pretty significant in-kind contributions. You take each appearance times the going rate for each performer. Are those contributions disclosed on Barack’s latest quarterly filing?

What if those performers have already contributed the max per individual, prior to the performance? What does Barack do? Give the money back or give the performance back?

What if you factor in the theoretical residuals to each performer for each replay?

What about the value of the video itself? If you use the RIAA’s method of financial accounting; that video multiplied by its downloads has a value of approximately 3 trillion dollars and climbing.

Somebody, somewhere really busted some contribution caps.