Why Am I a Ron Paul Republican?

Anyone following the candidacy of Ron Paul has heard the question asked and answered many times regarding his party affiliation. Each time he reminds the questioner he is probably the most Republican of any of the Republican candidates in the race. Many articles and discussions are now referring to him as a libertarian Republican; a part of the Republican Liberty Caucus which many Republican voters do not even seem to know exists. Is his claim more spin or is it accurate? Are the roots of the Republican Party set in ideas of liberty?

While visiting my county’s website, to find the location of the precinct caucus for where I live, there was a reminder that the party roots are as Ron Paul claims. What I found can be found on Republican Party websites across the country. It is a listing of beliefs within the party and given as the reasoning behind affiliating with them. Let’s take a look at each one and consider Ron Paul’s ideals. The listing states several beliefs and each one starts with the words ‘I Believe’ starting with;

I am a Republican Because…

I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

Ron Paul: There is no doubt he embraces this. He has discussed the problem with many in the U.S. is we’ve lost confidence in our own ability. He also reminds us if we are to accomplish the goal of ending income taxation and the IRS we must be responsible for ourselves and not rely on the federal government for things we should be doing.

I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

Ron Paul: Again, he strongly supports equality for all citizens. He differentiates between the equality however when it comes to those illegally living in the U.S. Although some try to claim he is racist due to his ‘no’ votes on some legislation their claims are shallow and unfounded.

I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

Ron Paul: He strongly supports government getting out of the way. He does not support corporatism or subsidies but clearly is in favor of true free market economics. His stance in this area has been unwavering.

I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

Ron Paul: Consistently stands in favor of the NEED to reduce government spending and restoring a monetary system that makes sense. He wants to end income taxation and replace it with nothing. Keep in mind, he operates his Congressional office in such a fiscal manner he returns a portion of his budget EVERY year. He knows the lack of fiscal responsibility is a root cause of the problem and is willing to articulate the negative impacts of the inflation tax along with other crippling ripple effects.

I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.

Ron Paul: While the Republican’s controlled both the legislative and executive branches of our federal government we saw massive expansions of many bureaucratic organizations. In researching and picking apart the votes and initiatives leading to this growth Dr. No was the lone voice on too many occasions calling for reduced federal involvement in our lives. The foundational document provides a very good roadmap to what critical functions are. Individuals and private organizations can do much more for citizens, with far greater efficiency and compassion, than the federal government. One candidate advocates the less is best philosophies which use to be a standard the party stood by in earnest.

I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

Ron Paul: Again, throughout his entire political career his voice rang out for more power and authority at the local and State level. It was through this very concept the founding of this country was initially successful. By the time Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, "It is not the administrative, but the political effectiveness of the local system I most admire," the wisdom of this was being clearly proven. This is a key factor that only Dr. Paul appears to embrace among the current candidates.

I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

Ron Paul: His voice continually rises, even in front of hostile receptors of the message; we must retain our foundational principles. Also, he understands the importance of building upon and improving the founders concepts and sees hope in that process. There is no abandoning of these principles due to modernization or fear.

I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

Ron Paul: This is clearly tied to a foreign policy of non-intervention. Jeffersonian Republicans knew it, and many strong Republican leaders ran on and supported it throughout the history of our Grand Old Party. Among all the candidates currently seeking the Presidency his is the only voice who still believes in it and, no matter if it is what the audience may want to hear, is willing to always present it as key and critical to the future prosperity of the United States and hope for a more global peace.

FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

Ron Paul: After learning the true challenges of entangling himself with another party nearly 20 years ago he has since championed these very beliefs as a Republican. I too, at one point, briefly ran as a Libertarian and learned this same lesson. He embraces the very foundations of the party and strongly supports the party and the Republican Liberty Caucus within the party.

He understands the history of the Republican Party, he has studied each belief, and he has held strong to those beliefs while many in the party have wandered so far from the path many mistake them for Democrats. We hear the term Republicrats used often and there is a growing perception there is little or no difference between the two parties. There is a difference in the history of the party that once championed the Constitution and stood by the beliefs outlined on the many county websites across the country. I am a Ron Paul Republican for one simple and never changing fact. In 2008 Ron Paul is the only TRUE Republican running on the party’s ticket, the only one we can look to and see our beliefs in consistent, passionate action.

Ron Paul's Reaction: Tough Common Sense

©December 28, 2007
by Gary Wood

Today’s assassination of Benazir Bhutto has created a firestorm of passionate reactions from around the world. In the United States those vying to become our next President are responding in a variety of ways one could no doubt expect. John McCain is touting his unprecedented experience as being key and critical in times like these. Hillary Clinton is reminding people she not only had a professional but also a personal relationship with the Pakistan leader. Mitt Romney has mentioned the need to further our policy of propping up foreign governments. Rudy Giuliani is stating 9/11, 9/11. The fear of terrorism and the loss of this brave lady, who passionately lived to help a dream of democracy in Pakistan be realized, are being used to further the cause of interventionist approaches in dealing with the world.

I have listened to each candidate’s response with the thought of whom I would want in the Oval Office when this type of tragedy rocks the world. It is this type of crisis that allows a window of opportunity to be opened for either common sense preventative reactions or for the spreading of reactionary actions leading to more of the same. When passion and fear collide it is easy to believe we are listening to someone dedicated to being tough when it comes to terrorism and world instability by continuing a political path that has aided in leading us to our current situation. In our hearts we want to stand up with an iron fist to crush those behind such violent, despicable acts.

The toughest response I have heard today came from Ron Paul in a brief phone interview on Fox’s ‘Your World with Neil Cavuto’ and in a longer interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on ‘The Situation Room.’ No doubt many will spin his position as being somehow weak yet it is true intestinal strength to react the way he did. Often, when looking in the mirror, we don’t like to admit our policies may somehow weaken those we think we are helping.

Ron Paul reminded us all we backed a dictator who overthrew an elected government and spent billions over the last eight years aiding his government. He advocated changing the policy immediately while indicating Bhutto was a true fighter for democracy in that country. He also was brave enough to remind us our Constitution does not give us the right to continue to meddle in the affairs of foreign countries nor does it give us the right to continue to intervene. His lone voice on the campaign trail delivered tough common sense!

For several weeks we can be assured many will spin these tough words as the wrong approach to the events unfolding due to Benazir Bhutto’s sacrifice. We will have our patriotism called into question while the hawkish interventionists attempt to further capitalize on our fears as well as our compassion. Many of the media’s talking heads will tell us our policies must not only be continued but ramped up to fight the global war on terrorism. Through all of this I can only hope and pray the toughest common sense approach of non-intervention will finally be understood by at least of few more brave defenders of liberty.

Liberty's Success = 471

by Gary Wood
©December 22, 2007

We’re hearing an ever growing number of voices shouting liberty and freedom. In an election year there are many candidates willing to use these words rhetorically hoping to spark trust or patriotic feelings to garner a vote. A vote tells us a lot about those trying to convince us they will help change the way our government is run and they will restore liberty and freedom. Listen to the soundbites bombarding us from all sides and you will hear the use of such emotional splendor as constitution, founding fathers, our foundation, our heritage, and American values connected with their words of promise. Yet most promise these passionate rhetorical guarantees quite often and once elected quickly forget since it was only rhetoric to be used for persuasion, mental invasion, and then to be tucked away for the next reelection campaign.

This approach has worked well for countless state and federal level representatives as well as many campaigning to become our Commander-in-Chief. Year after election year the magic trick of rhetoric is pulled on an audience too busy attempting to live a life filled with daily time pressures and demands. Falling far too often for the political tricks, simply by being entranced by the candidate’s patter, those not helping restore liberty and freedom find themselves returning to governing and entertaining the lobbying clan. However, a magic trick and rhetoric can only be shown to the same audience just so many times before the mystique and belief in magic gives way to the real nature of the slight of hand movements, or in this case the lack of real change. No longer mesmerized and amazed the audience becomes disappointed that there is no real magic, no real magician, just tricks of the trade, the tricks secret now revealed.

So it is this election year, you can find them everywhere spitting the patter of liberty, freedom, and hope. Yet they finally showed their trick to the same audience too many times and now we know there are no real magicians, except maybe one. Watching this one, who’s been performing his brand of magic for decades, he appears to a growing number to be the only skilled magician among the many would be hopefuls. Perhaps there are others yet his skill is creating a mighty stir, his act is becoming the true main attraction. Watching his vote we catch no deceit, following his actions we sense a real feat. Liberty and freedom are not empty words and the foundation of the nation is his passion, our treat.

Yet change in the way our federal government is run, restoring liberty and freedom, really improving the paths for our children’s children takes more than one, even if he becomes President. Would you agree that’s true? With a wise selection for Vice President that’s still only two so is there anything at all the audience can really do? Real magic, beyond a rhetorical parlor trick, takes focus and steady concentration. This election year, if you are one who internally desires the restoration of liberty, help every registered voter you can focus on 471. Do this and this year the U.S. Constitution will have won. Ahhh, the magic in the trick, the secret you wish revealed is what is the power of 471?

Its simple mathematics as magic often is; President Ron Paul and his Vice President are two, add 34 Senators who’re in need of your vote plus 435 Representatives wanting the same and only cast your vote, your focus, on a candidate that wants liberty and freedom as badly as you! How do you know? Track the votes, follow the actions and if there is no feat beat feet. Only focus, only vote for candidates you are confident are on freedom’s true side and now you have power beyond even a most talented Dr. Paul. Now you have the power to get true change done. Help restore our Federal Republic; we need many voters’ focus if we expect real magic.

If you pick a few wrong no need to panic friend, focus on 469 in 2010!

The Radical Truth About Ron Paul!

He is radical and here's a few truths to prove it!

read more | digg story

Ron Paul is Radical, Not Mainstream

You've heard this from the media and his opponents. By definition there is no longer any doubt Ron Paul is both radical and out of the mainstream!

read more | digg story

Land Of Liberty?

Are we in the land of liberty or simply buried in snow?

read more | digg story

Don't Waste Your Vote!

Politics are not a sporting event we bet on...

read more | digg story

You Think We're Free?

Many believe we live in the land of the free yet do we?

read more | digg story

Doubting Ron Paul

Many doubt Ron Paul has any chance of winning. Do you doubt if Ron Paul can win?

read more | digg story

Can Ron Paul Win?

Listening to many this political season,There's a question asked time and again.While many embrace our liberty's reason,They wonder aloud, can Ron Paul win?

read more | digg story

The Golden Rule Isolates and Fails

© by Gary Wood
November 28, 2007

Ask anyone what the ‘Golden Rule’ is and you will hear many a similar answer. Very simply stated it is treating others the way you would like others to treat you. Often referred to as the ethic of reciprocity it is taught, in one form or another, by many different faiths and ideologies. Although some members of the Christian faith believe it was first introduced in the times of Jesus the ethic actually existed long before yet was embraced within the teachings as it has been embraced by so very many.

Study the teachings for Buddhism and one hears expressions like, “Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.” The Baha’i Faith has expressions such as, "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." Throughout the Old and New Testament there are sentiments similar to, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." In the Analects Confucius taught, “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” Islamic teachings are filled with the idea as evidenced in, "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." Turning to Jainism teachings we again find the golden rule concept in reading, “Just as pain is not agreeable to you, it is so with others. Knowing this principle of equality treat other with respect and compassion.” The underlying principle of Jewish law can be found in the teaching, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”

With so many claiming the golden rule is truly a sound way to treat others and is a good way to be treated why does it isolate and fail? In the Republican debates most of the candidates support a form of the preemptive interventionist policy currently embraced by the Bush Administration and used by many administrations in the past. In the debate last night Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) defended the current policy and claimed the policy supported by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was the type of policy that “We allowed -- we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.” Paul’s policy is one of non-intervention as embraced by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. According to Paul he is not an isolationist, “I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here and they're going to object to us over there.” In other words, do unto others as we would have others do unto us or the Golden Rule.

I’ve heard this type of interaction throughout the campaign this year as the Iraq war is one of the key issues being hotly contested. Most candidates in both parties want to continue some level of presence in Iraq. I hear commentators and political leaders across the country discuss the need to win, secure, and maintain a military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Many also make the comment (as they do on many topics), “...except Paul.” If you were to review a transcript from last night’s post-debate coverage on CNN you would have heard those two words more than a dozen times.

Yet, everything I study and read about the idea of non-intervention as a primary foreign policy to follow indicates it is foundational and consistently inline with the teachings of the ethic of reciprocity. Within foreign affairs how we treat countries is indicative to how we want to be treated, isn’t it? Using a policy of preemptive intervention sends the clear message we, the government and citizens of the United States, treat other nations this way and therefore it is fair for other nations to treat us this way. According to McCain we create Hitler type leaders if we use non-intervention instead. If the policy is to trade, talk, and travel to each other’s country while respecting the sovereignty and right to defend one’s own borders McCain and others say it isolates the U.S. and it fails. A foreign policy based on the teachings of the Golden Rule, that is, to treat others as we would have them treat us is wrong according to most of the candidates who want to take over as POTUS.

If the Golden Rule isolates and fails between countries it also is a failed philosophy among individuals. It cannot be an ethic of reciprocity on the one level and not on the other. The Golden Rule must either be rewritten or it must be retired as a failed teaching among most philosophies and theologies if we are to accept a preemptive intervention policy. Perhaps the other interpretation of the Golden Rule is more accurate among the current political leaders in the United States. You know the other Golden Rule, “He who has the gold rules.”

SSDD: Same Stink, Different Day

©by Gary Wood

November 28, 2007

As a young airman, in 1970s Grand Forks, I first heard the reply SSDD. It was a very common response when asking someone how they were doing. Some of you reading this are saying the second ‘S’ does not stand for ‘stink’ yet you can appreciate what substance caused the stink so for this article that is what I’ll use, staying politically correct and away from the word filter police. I was watching more of the news regarding the campaign going on for the POTUS and it sure reminded me of SSDD.

The first Presidential campaign I actively worked on was in 1972. It was a different campaign from today simply due to the fact a sitting President was running for reelection. Looking at modern history there is one way SSDD would not apply. The last time there was no sitting President or Vice President running was 1952. Eisenhower won on a campaign promise to personally end the Korean War while maintaining a strong defense against Communism abroad and sound, honest fiscal policies at home. Aside from the 1952 campaign each of the subsequent races for the White House have had someone running that currently held one of the two highest elected offices. Strangely, the media’s leading candidate for the Democratic nomination does have the full support and backing of a former President, Bill Clinton.

One thing that smacks of SSDD is the idea of a Clinton in the White House. Hillary Clinton, if elected, will join a 28 year tradition of having either a member of the Bush or Clinton family serving as either the President or Vice President. Some speculate after eight years of a Hillary White House perhaps another Bush will get elected and after yet another eight years of another Bush it will be time for Chelsea Clinton to take up residency for her eight years. If this gives you a reason to smile you see the humor in the scenario, if you awake in the middle of the night in a cold sweat you see the disaster in this scenario.

Listening to the debates and stump speeches of the candidates truly does embrace the pure essence of SSDD. The same stink being spewed in today’s campaign promises is similar in aromatic displeasure of campaign promises made in a different day, even a different decade. Remember the promise made in 1988 by George the First, something about “Read my lips...” and then came the taxes and then came Clinton in 1992. Go back a bit further and listen in as Richard Nixon promises to restore law and order while defeating Hubert Humphrey. Have you heard any candidate promise the same type of sentiment today? Here’s a hint, listen closely to Rudy Giuliani!

It was not long ago, especially if you are my age or older, we had a former governor from a small state talk about the advantages of electing a Washington D.C. outsider over corrupt politics within the beltway. Jimmy Carter beat Ford in 1976; Ronald Reagan returned the favor by championing outsider sentiment once again while defeating Carter in 1980. Have you heard anyone picking up the cry of being from outside the beltway this year? There are many, even a couple of small state governors, Richardson and Huckabee. SSDD.

Some will remember a time when religion finally took a back seat to policy discussions, when Kennedy became the first Roman Catholic to win in what was the narrowest popular vote ever. Today there is another trying to be the first to win the Presidency while being a member of a less than popular religion and opponents use the issue to cloud policy discussions. Will the Mormon question be silenced by actual policy? Perhaps not if the policy is not delivered as dynamically as Kennedy was able to deliver it and when one listens to the campaign promises of Mitt Romney one can easily sense SSDD.

If we listen closely we can hear much discussion from many candidates in favor of programs and policies which will create bigger government and higher taxes. This was not very popular throughout recent elections. The SSDD does not seem to be garnering the wrath it has in the past. Perhaps too many have promised, while on the campaign trail, the idea of smaller Federal government and lower taxes while citizens see the size and cost of their Federal government ever-expanding even after voting for the smaller promise.

Those candidates blatantly trumpeting promises that knowingly will enlarge both the size and cost of government seem to be even more popular than those who are not. Are we now so accustomed to the stink it actually smells funny without it? Simply look at the popular polls to find the big government candidates who are either leading or near the lead. There’s Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain to name a few. As a matter of reflection note the names of candidates proposing smaller government and lower taxes...go ahead...look hard. There’s Paul and, well maybe Huckabee, oh, Hunter and Tancredo...what about Kucinich? Oh, nope, he wants the new Dept. of Peace and more.

Change, there is one SSDD that is everywhere in every election. How many state they represent true change? Perhaps the focus is on small variations rather than truly making things different and we misunderstand their meaning. Change is an extremely ambiguous concept but in the two-party political arena have we seen any major differences over the years or is it all becoming the same stink, different day?

The Party's Over

There should be no more party affiliation, the Democrat and Republican Party control must end!

read more | digg story

Our Empire Implodes Our Nation

There is little doubt as we move forward it is our desire to influence the world that directly weakens us as a nation. We become weaker as we desire to militarily strengthen the world's views.

read more | digg story

WWJD with a Muslim

What would Jesus do in the Middle East? I don't think he would follow Bush's lead.In fact, this is what Jesus is doing.

read more | digg story

Ron Paul Voters, Nov. 5th Historic Mass Donation Day. We CAN Do This!

Please join us this November 5th for the largest one day political donation event in history. Our goal is to bring together 100,000 people to donate $100 each, creating a one day donation total of $10,000,000. This will seal the deal! Go to http://thisnovember5th.com/ and register your support. You'll receive an email update each day with total number of supporters. This will be a great day to be a Ron Paul supporter and we can all be a part of a long overdue, peaceful, revolution!

read more | digg story

Who’s Whipping up the Power, You?

Oligarchy Rule in the United States
By Gary Wood
© October 18, 2007

An oligarchy is defined as “a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.” Some dictionaries define it further as rule by a few persons or families. The first time I heard the United States was very much becoming an oligarchy with a shadow government controlling much of the power, carrying titles and leadership roles none of the people voted on nor could the positions be found in the Constitution I rolled my eyes. Initially, the notion of some shadow government fell on deaf ears as I was nearly too quick to simply label the idea some conspiracy theory with no foundation. Finally, oligarchy stuck with me and I started to research in an effort to determine if there was any such few with power enough to run the government.

There is a level of plutocracy going on, that of the government being ruled by the wealthy as it is nearly impossible to gain access into the system, especially at the Federal and State level, for citizens of less wealth. The entire election process has grown immensely expensive. On a discussion board not long ago a poster, ‘alamo1836,’ came up with the combination of a plutocratic oligarchy being a possible better description of what form of government the U.S. is morphing in to. However, oligarchy still requires finding these few persons or the dominant class or clique.

Listening to some commentary on the Iraq war by Senator Harry Reid, the current Senate Majority Leader, it started to come into a clearer focus on where some of these few may be controlling the government from. He was mentioning what a disastrous foreign policy gaff the Iraq war was yet he did not lead the Senate in fulfilling their responsibility to either declare or not declare war there, which the Congress passed off to the Executive Branch. He was not apologizing for not fulfilling his duty, nor taking any responsibility but pointing blame in other directions. It’s like watching a magician’s shell game or a quick round of three cards Monte.

His title kept coming to my mind, Senate Majority Leader. Is that position on any ballot any of you voted on? The citizens of Nevada elected Harry Reid as one of their Senators but where were the voices of the people in assigning him the powerful title of Senate Majority Leader and where in the Constitution is this position defined? This is not the only position of this nature in the Legislative Branch, there are over 20 extremely powerful positions between the House and the Senate that control much of the Federal government’s Congress. Less than 4% of the elected officials wielding amazing influence complete with whips to keep everyone in line.

Take a look at who a few of these people are this year. In the Senate you have the Majority and Minority Leader titles held by Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) due to the Democrats holding a majority of seats. That’s the tradition, if your party holds the majority of seats your party gets to pick someone to play majority leader and it is a highly coveted and powerful role to play. Then, of course, every good leader needs to wield a skillful whip to keep the beasts of the circus in line. To help with this we have the Majority and Minority Whip held by Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Trent Lott (R-MS) cracking it for their leaders.

From the United States Senate’s website the definition of party floor leaders is, “The Majority Leader and Minority Leader are elected by their respective party conferences to serve as the chief Senate spokesmen for their parties and to manage and schedule the legislative and executive business of the Senate. By custom, the Presiding Officer gives the floor leaders priority in obtaining recognition to speak on the floor of the Senate.” The following definition for the position of whip is given. “Assistants to the floor leaders who are also elected by their party conferences. The Majority and Minority Whips (and their assistants) are responsible for mobilizing votes within their parties on major issues. In the absence of a party floor leader, the whip often serves as acting floor leader.”

Again, none of these positions were mandated in the Constitution yet began to emerge around the turn of the 19^th and 20^th century. Today they are merely accepted traditional and extremely powerful positions. Remember, the Senate was to be presided over by the Vice President and the House by a Speaker of the House. Note very clearly who the floor leaders speak for, their parties with priority in speaking. Nevadans may have elected Harry Reid but it is his job to speak for his party. Kentucky counted on being represented by Mitch McConnell but he is busy speaking not for Kentucky but for the Republican Party.

Look closely at the whips (and their assistants!) job which is to mobilize votes within their parties. In other words they are to insure there is enough of their party’s Congressional delegation in place at each vote to cast that vote not as the people would want but as the party wants. Illinois sent Dick Durbin to represent them and instead he, and his assistant, is charged to make sure there are enough Democrats at every important vote to cast that vote the Democratic Party way. The actual term, whip, comes to us from the position in a fox hunt known as the ‘whipper-in.’ The whipper-in assisted the huntsman in keeping the pack of dogs all together and stop the pack from running riot or chasing something other than the fox.

After the leaders, the whips are considered the second most powerful position in the House and Senate. Stop and think about how these positions have been created as a part of our government legislature through tradition and yet are now considered powerful, highly coveted titles to hold. It reminds me of aristocracy titles of old in many ways. Again, these are only 4 of the more than 20. There is the Conference Secretary and Conference Chair, each party has a Policy Chair, and finally each party has a Senatorial Committee Chair. The Senatorial Committee Chairs are not the same as each party’s National Chairman, that is another powerful position not elected by the people but the person filling the National Chair role is not a sitting elected representative of the people within the legislative branch.

In the House of Representatives you get another Majority and Minority Leader, Whips(one for each of the two parties), a Caucus and Conference Chair, one each Policy Chair, the Steering Chair and finally one each Congressional Committee Chair. Each of the positions again focuses on the issues of the party, the positions are selected by the party conferences and the duties are performed above and beyond any responsibility the person may have to the people who elected them initially with the idea of representing their, not the party, interest.

This may well be the fruition of the warnings voiced over 200 years ago regarding the dangerous, tyrannical nature of party politics. The power is shifted back and forth between only two parties, Republicans and Democrats. In the current structure there is no way any person elected from outside the two majority party powerhouses in the United States could ever hope to land one of these power positions. It would be easier to get elected as a third party Presidential candidate than win a seat at the inner circle of Congressional power. Anytime there is a shift in the control of Congress the parties merely switch majority and minority hats and the hunt continues.

We the people now accept these titles, listen closely when these people speak, follow the drama of who will rise and who will fall in these positions when there is a party shift in control of Congress. They are not mandated by the Constitution and they serve the party first and foremost. This short article has only scratched the surface of the plutocratic oligarchy running the United States. There are others in the Executive and Judicial branches and many of these same traditional positions are mimicked in State level governments across the country. This is the shadow government; cast the light on it and it becomes apparent there are a few, rich and powerful people governing this country. We the people may believe we are in control but that tradition seems to have been brought nearly to an end.

When we wonder why there is less and less difference between the Democrats and Republicans overall this appears to be a very strong reason. There has to be, for a time, a façade maintained the people are getting a choice but the two-party system has a stranglehold on the power of government and over time really care less and less who is in the majority and who is in the minority as long as the shadow positions are selected by the parties and not the people. Who’s whipping up the power? The two-party system is, not you.

Mitt Romney: It's Not Religion, its His Politics

By Gary Wood
© October 15, 2007

Living in the Salt Lake Valley I have had the opportunity to discuss the upcoming primary election with many people. Literally dozens have chided me for not supporting Mitt Romney for President in 2008. Some have actually accused me of being prejudiced against him due to his religion. Only two have been able to discuss, at any length or depth, the political history and platform of Mitt Romney. Most simply expect me to support him due to his active membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It has reached a point I feel it necessary to declare that I have no problem with Romney’s religion, it is his politics I cannot, and will not, support.

If he had the same love of the Constitutional form of government this country was founded on, as the late Ezra Taft Benson held, he would no doubt have earned my vote. Remember these words of wisdom, “The sole function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property and anything more than this is usurpation and oppression.”(Ezra Taft Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, 1969) Think of that, anything more is usurpation and oppression.

What about Benson’s inspiring words, “There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the president of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift' their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even to defend them against their enemies."(The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 614; see also p. 682 & 704)

This man, Ezra Taft Benson, would have earned, truly been given freely, my vote for President of the United States. He understood the Constitution and the role of the President of the United States and of the Congress! He is not the only LDS leader that has; there have been many who share his inspired views. Mitt Romney simply is not one of them and does not deserve, nor earn, my vote and it is not his religion, and it is his politics! One only has to listen to his answers in the debates or study his record as Governor of Massachusetts to realize he is in lock step thinking with many of the Bush Administration and major Republican Party leadership positions which are not in step with the Constitution for the United States of America.

There is little research that really needs to be done by anyone within the LDS Church or outside the church to see Romney is not a firm believer in the Constitution. Simply, if you have watched or looked up the transcripts from the latest Republican debates you’ll begin to understand. Do you remember the one key question that Chris Matthews asked of Mitt Romney about the need to go to Congress for military action? If not, let me remind you now, from the transcripts of the debate Matthews’ asked the following, “Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?”
The answer by Romney reaffirmed all my beliefs but still sent a shockwave through me as this man may well be the next President. “You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress...” The Constitution requires the Congress to declare war. What Congress gave to Bush was totally against the supreme law of the land and totally betrayed their obligations by passing to the Executive Branch a power it never, I repeat, never should have!

I agree 100% with the reply of Congressman Ron Paul when he answered the following question by Matthews. He was asked, “Congressman Paul, do you believe the president needs authorization of Congress to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?” His reply, “Absolutely. This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.” Romney does not either get it or does not agree with the Constitution on it, only Congress can declare war! It is a part of the careful check and balance system those 55 enlightened men debated over some 220 years past and the Bush Administration’s undeclared war on Iraq is proof the founders were right and Romney is wrong.

That is simply a scratch on the surface of the many political stances Mitt Romney has taken over his career to prove he simply doesn’t share the wisdom of Ezra Taft Benson. He wants to continue the same failed, preemptive interventionist foreign policy that has created the disasters we face in the world today. He will not learn from the past nine decades of history showing it is a failed policy that needs to be changed. He wants to continue the IRS and the income tax system started with the 16th Amendment and radicalized by FDR and wants to continue to use it to offer ‘incentives’ to the people for controlling the way we live our lives. His health care plan he signed into law in Massachusetts is very familiar, it is as if Hillary Clinton took his law and fashioned her Health Care Choice proposal after it.

My fellow Utahans, and all others blindly preparing to cast a vote for Romney because of his religion please take pause! Study this man’s politics, not his religion. It is OK to respect the way he has chosen to live his life religiously. It is fine to have a great deal of appreciation of the business sense he exhibited while saving the 2002 Olympics, we know what a great thing he did in that capacity. But, in the primaries we are not voting for his religion, nor are we voting for his business savvy, we are voting for the next President of the United States. Let me simply remind everyone reading this of the oath the person elected to President will take in January 2009.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The best of his ability does not give us any political expectation that he fully understands the Constitution let alone does it lead us to believe he will defend it. Do not study or vote his religion. Study and vote based on his politics and the next time you see me you will no doubt be supporting a different candidate during the Utah Republican primaries or the primaries of the state in which you reside.

Election 2008 - Get Thee to the Primaries Survey

Lock and Load, Rock and Roll!

By Gary Wood
© October 13, 2007

Can you hear John Wayne saying these words, lock and load, in his 1949 movie, The Sands of Iwo Jima, as a way to signal his men to get ready for either battle or drinking? Quite literally it stems from locking back the bolt on a rifle before loading the ammunition. It has become synonymous with getting ready for action. You may hear in a VFW hall as the patrons prepare to slam a drink, you may hear in among a group of college students preparing to cheer their football team on, you may also hear it combined with two other words, rock and roll. Lock and load, rock and roll is now the battle cry for get ready, let’s go!

Most of the time, outside of a military engagement, this battle cry is used in recreational or business settings. In this setting it loses some of the militaristic flare while maintaining its meaning as a call to immediate action. Whether that action is a sales team about ready to hit the sales floor before the doors open or that group of college students is about to enter the stadium once the gates open it is somehow endearing. A part of the term was made famous with the members of United Flight 93 being heard to say, “Let’s roll!”

Are you ready to really lock and load? The political campaign time-frame is continual today. It seems someone is always out stumping for votes and funds for their campaigns. For most voting eligible people it makes it hard to stay engaged in the process, to remain ready for action. After so many commercials, far too many road signs which always seem to be there anymore and too many of the events billed as debates there is numbness to it all. We see evidence of this each year when voter turnout figures are released and fewer are taking their duties to heart and actually going to the polls and casting their ballot.

Some of the reason for not being locked and loaded come Election Day is the feeling our vote simply does not count. Another reason is a real frustration with the quality of the candidates. There is also a feeling of confusion or lack of information regarding ballot initiatives or referendums and who among us really know much of anything about all those judges on the ballot anyway? This frustration has reached a point there are two things happening this year which we will look at.

First, there is a small but steady murmuring of those saying it is time to boycott the elections. This sounds like a pretty good idea if you’re tired of the way things are going and you don’t know what to do about it. However, the plutocratic oligarchy running this country really could not care less if some voters boycott. As long as all voters don’t participate in a boycott the fewer that vote simply means the fewer they must convince to cast a vote their way. There is not a single person in the Democratic or Republican National Committee that truly cares if you go to the polls as long as there are enough of their party numbers to gain a majority among the number of votes cast. Most of the two-party leadership is more than happy to have you unload and unlock your barrel.

Second, and this one is the more exciting of the two, there are voices of reason and honesty coming from both sides of the two-party process. Perhaps, waiting in the wings is a third-party champion ready to also make some sense once the Presidential Primary scam, or season, is completed. Voters really need to pay attention to the many candidates from all parties at the local and state level to insure they can identify these voices of reason. At the Presidential Campaign level you must truly be prepared for action, you have to lock and load, then rock and roll! The media and the mainstream party heads, the oligarchy, will not help you find these champions of liberty and freedom. If you are waiting to hear from the latest political talking heads don’t hold your breath, you will not be living come Election Day if you do.

Yet, there is a revolution going on and if the troops fighting in this revolution do not win the primary battle the fight will continue. Like many revolutionaries of old these groups of fighters are highly educated, enlightened, and tired of their country going in the wrong direction under bad leadership. The frustrations of the past election cycles, the frustration with the poor stewardship of people’s trust, the failure to live up to the oath of office taken by those who’ve won the votes of the past, and the oppressive nature of daily life for far too many of us has finally moved a growing number to action. You can find these campaigners in newly formed third-party organizations like the Constitutionalist Party. You can find them on the Democratic side working with candidates Kucinich and Gravel.

Today I was fortunate enough to actually lock and load, rock and roll with a highly educated, extremely passionate group of revolutionaries that took over four corners of a busy downtown intersection in Salt Lake City, UT. We weren’t armed with rifles, thank goodness we have not reached that point yet, and we can still win this war with our voices...our votes still count! We were armed with signs for our selected leader, from of all places the Republican Party? Yes, but from the Republican Liberty Caucus, the voice within the party that has been squelched far too long, those who know the value of liberty and freedom, of limited Federal government, of fiscal responsibility with a monetary system based on real value, of limited and indirect taxation, of a foreign policy that embraces the world without preemptively forcing the world to embrace us, and the importance of having decisions made flowing from the people, the community, the state, and lastly the federal levels.

We stood with our large signs touting the slogans; Ron Paul: Hope for America, Ron Paul Revolution, Ron Paul for President 2008, and more. For an entire block leading to the corner large signs could be seen by drivers and then they entered our gauntlet of smiles and waves, signs moving, voices cheering, and the horns of the cars would honk as people would shout and cheer back. The movement is growing, not merely the Ron Paul Revolution but the entire revolution of people once again engaged in learning and casting an intelligent vote for the BEST candidate, not simply the least of the worst the two-party oligarchy regurgitates for us.

Grab on to your Internet connection, Google, MSN, Yahoo or Ask the search engines for information about all the candidates. Study the voting records, philosophies, beliefs and backgrounds of each and every candidate daring to ask you for your vote. Follow the money trail; dig in to the real people as the information is out there just waiting for your mind to apply critical thinking to what you find. Like no other year in recent memory the election year of 2008 gives us the best opportunity to begin to demand our country back and actually have success!

It’s time; Lock and load! Rock and Roll!

Who Do You Have to Win in the Ninth?

By Gary Wood
© October 12, 2007

Ahhh, the ponies, have you ever spent a day at the racetrack watching the thoroughbreds run? You grab the racing forms, check out the picks from the expert odds makers, study the lines and lay down your bet for the winner. If you’re a Chalk Player you wager on the favorites in any given race and you know the odds are in your favor at the start of every race. The horses begin the parade toward the starting gate and someone near you says there is a horse that looks pretty or I sure like the colors that horse is wearing and they go to bet on that pretty plug horse as you shake your head in disbelief, what a waste of money. Yet, from time-to-time, you are caught in amazement as the plug turns out to be the winner and the silly bet returns large rewards.

Many people enjoy the thrill of betting on sporting events. In every event there are favorites and long shots. Most are not willing to bet on the long shots, there is something in our nature that shouts to us not to waste our money on betting our hearts or betting on a long shot. At the same time we find ourselves often cheering for underdogs and when an underdog wins, even if we didn’t bet on them, we quietly smile and think maybe we should have just this one time.

The experts are always ready with their picks and they have the best information to substantiate their picks. Look at the preseason polls in college football this year alone. Every sports show broadcast before opening day had the justification for picking the best of the best while giving little attention to the rest. This season the best have fallen week after week, leaving the experts scratching their heads in disbelief. That’s why we play the game, after all, and it is exciting to watch. The buzz turns from the best to the Cinderella teams that have risen to the occasion if only for one game. Simply stated, you just never know.

Still we turn our attention to the facts and figures that scream what should be happening, who should be winning. When we step to the window to plunk down our dollars we are drawn by that voice that calmly reaffirms our need to pick the winner, the obvious winner, and so it goes at sports books and racetracks all over the world.

This mentality bleeds over into an event that is far more important than anything happening in the sports world. Every year we face the voting booth at some level and enter the polling booth to cast our votes for candidates who will represent our views, our desires. Yet, we are trapped in a sporting event mentality not wanting to waste our vote, wanting to be able to say we voted for the winner rather than we voted for the one we thought would represent us well.

We follow the experts and listen to the odds developed by the early polling data. We gather our information as if we were betting on a horse race rather than voting on the future of our nation, State or community. Time and again we hear an expert cry to the masses that a vote for one candidate or another is merely a wasted vote, thrown away like a poorly conceived monetary bet on a plug horse. We are swayed away from someone we think may represent our views and instead convinced they have no chance so we cast our vote for the odds on winner, we become nothing more than Chalk Players in a political sporting event.

Politics are not sports; this is not the time to take on the wagering mentality we use for betting on players, horses, or teams. There is never a wasted vote unless it is the vote that goes unused. There is never a wasted vote unless it is a vote for a candidate you do not fully embrace but simply select because, after all, they are the front runner, the odds on favorite and better looking than the other horse in the race.

Politics are filled with experts who understand the sports betting mentality and play on it with skilled perfection. There are many media talking heads, party politic leaders, and pollsters ready to convince voters not to waste their votes no matter what their heart or mind may say. There is a mountain of statistics and data to prove which candidates must receive your vote for they are the favorites. Chalk Players continue to cast votes based on this expert analysis and after the race, even when your candidate wins, there is often regret if the changes you want never reach fruition. Politics are not a sporting event; your vote is never wasted, if you cast it based on your beliefs of who the best candidate is to represent you.

Will your candidate always win if you do bet your desires? Perhaps not yet from time-to-time they do, if you are brave enough to break free from the sports betting mentality played on by the leaders who truly don’t care what you do. Don’t select your candidate the way you select your horse, select your candidate based on the beliefs in your heart rather than the expert’s polling advice. The future of your nation, State and community depends on your vote while the future of the horse depends only on the jockey and the ride and not on your bet.

Election 2008 Issues Survey - Are we ready to vote?

The Evil Twins Leading in the Polls Again

by Gary Wood
© October 11, 2007

With the advent of an early election campaign season we have been bombarded with national and local polls showing the default winners for the U.S. Presidency General Elections before the first primary vote is even cast. There may well be a significant change regarding the winner of the Republican side of the equation while the Democratic contest appears to be more a race for Vice President than President, especially if you listen to the mainstream media. In discussing the outcomes there is no loud roar for third-party candidates and the idea of any dark horse from either of the two-party oligarchy rising to victory appears unlikely to most observers right now.

Looking at all the polling data it was interesting to get feedback from some family and friends about the results and what it meant to them. Resoundingly there was the inevitable feeling the choice in the General Election would once again be a choice of the Lesser of two Evils. Some felt Lesser Evil was Democrat while others felt Lesser Evil was Republican. This confusion is easy to understand when you finally realize that More Evil and Lesser Evil are identical twins.

It is necessary to investigate these two twins more closely to improve our understanding of how they seem to dominate the elections each and every year. The Evil twins were reluctant to talk to me initially but I finally convinced More Evil to sit down and answer some basic questions for Hear My Thunder.org (HMT). Here is what we learned before the interview was cut short;

HMT – Thank you, More Evil, for sitting down with us. Can you explain why you’re twin, Lesser, and you seem to always be so popular?

More – It’s really a simple formula. We plan our platforms to be close enough on many issues as to actually blur understanding while keeping enough differences to sway the people toward one of us while convincing them a vote for anyone else is a waste.

HMT – In our research we’ve never uncovered anyone willing to vote for you, the voters always cast their vote for Lesser Evil, how do you deal with such losses every election year?

More – We are very well connected, Lesser and I, so it really doesn’t matter.

HMT – Why doesn’t it matter?

More – I do not use my name due to an impulse toward favoring Lesser, I’ve come to accept the fact nobody likes me. Look, think about 2000 when Lesser beat me out in the courts, remember that?

HMT – Yes, go on...

More – Everyone now knows that Lesser did not really beat me, you see we’re identical twins. All those voting for Lesser thought Lesser moved into the White House but in reality WE moved in. What you get when you vote for Lesser Evil is both More and Less Evil, no matter how it comes out Evil wins. Face it, right now you are talking to More or are you? You really don’t... {More’s phone rings...nods...hangs up} Ummm...seems we aren’t to be talking about this with you, seems...ummm...just forget what I said, we’ll deny it anyway, I gotta go.

HMT – But we have additional questions...

That was the end of the interview, More Evil (if that was More and not Less), quickly left without another word. Once this is published there will also no doubt be denial from one or both of the Evil Twins yet we do have the actual tape recordings of the conversation.

Another discovery is the Evil family is quite large and twins are a common occurrence. We’ve seen Evil members running for office at all levels, Federal, State, and Local. One of the key factors for on-going success is the Evil Family seems to be well-balanced between the two major parties. This has helped both funding and exposure through the media. The Evil Family is very well connected with policy makers, lobbyist, and other public officials.

The most disturbing fact that came out of the brief interview we had was the cavalier attitude evident in the tone of More, if that was indeed More. The other major awakening for me was the blatant disregard for concern over which Evil twin wins. Everyone thinks they are voting for Lesser Evil while nobody thinks they are voting for More Evil. What we are getting however is both, or in other words, Evil wins every time, and its been quite a winning streak.

It would appear the only hope we have for breaking this victory parade is taking a stand against voting for Lesser Evil. If the choice is between the More and Lesser Evil we must look for another candidate to invest our vote with. However, to do this we must be able to come to grips that voting for anyone other than the Lesser of the two Evil is not a waste but a demand for government change, a change that will not come in a government overseen by More and Lesser Evil, as we know all too well.

Shopping Stops Terrorism!

By Gary Wood
© October 10, 2007

Checking my watch I see it is early October. Commercials are starting, stores are decorating, and it is time for another year of the commercialized push toward Christmas gift giving. Consumers prepare by checking the credit card balances and setting up home equity lines of credit to insure everyone is ready to spend their way toward holiday happiness. Not only will our families be happier if we buy like crazy, it is the patriotic thing to do and our way of helping to defeat the terrorists.

Remember we are taught the importance of shopping in fighting off the terrorists. One need only listen intently to the words of the U.S. President, the Honorable George W. Bush. “This war on terror is the calling of a new generation; it is the calling of our generation. Success is essential to securing a future of peace for our children and grandchildren. And securing this peace for the future is going to require a sustained commitment from the American people and our military....A recent report on retail sales shows a strong beginning to the holiday shopping season across the country -- and I encourage you all to go shopping more.”

In recent years I met the onslaught of holiday advertising with a grunt and groan. The commercial focus on the holidays of Thanksgiving and Christmas was something I grew so frustrated over I nearly considered boycotting holiday gift giving all together. Forgive me for being so selfish and narrow minded regarding the shopping season. It wasn’t until the call to arms by Bush that I realized how unpatriotic I was by being annoyed with the commercials and displays at every turn. This year my outlook is different for now I know the debt load and gifts will go a long way in sticking it to terrorists who attempt to destroy world neighbors everywhere.

With many new credit card offers bombarding the mailbox it suddenly occurred to me just how helpful these companies were being. It was not some profit based, high interest charging, self-interest that caused them to mail me more credit debt opportunity. No, these corporations were merely rallying behind the cries of leaders to fight terrorists in our own backyard and around the globe. These companies were aiding to arm an army of consumers poised this holiday season to deliver a severe blow to the terror networks of the world. It was not my rightful duty to shred these offers; it was time to make a stand, to arm myself and family with the artillery necessary for a battle that would culminate in victory over the evil attackers of our liberty.

It does not matter where the products are made, simply buy the products. Give to every person a gift whether friend, family, or even a foe. To the foe present toys from China, to the friend and family avoid recalls if you dare. This is a time for all citizens to band together, armed to the hilt with all the credit one can obtain. Shop until you drop! Fight on through the mobs and give them their due for they are merely attempting to be as patriotic as you!

Give me credit or give me death! Take not the purchasing power from my hands but allow me the buying power to deliver our stores from evil. Frivolous presents shall not be delivered for all presents will aid more than a family, they will aid our world in warding off the dangers of homicide bombers everywhere. Fear not the overpowering debt, know deep in your heart you are fighting for life, liberty, and freedom in all corners of the globe!

Embrace the commercials; be honored by the in-store displays. Know this is happening for one purpose and only one purpose. WE defeat the terror and drive it into the depth of dark caves by shopping, not dropping, our way to freedom and liberty. Shop on fellow citizens, rise to the call, shop on fellow citizens, and death ~ to terrorists all!

Finally a Good Bill, the CLEAR ACT OF 2007

This is something we all have a stake in, because its a good bill , the speaker of the house doesn't want to bring it to the floor of the House of Representatives, she has decided to stall any legislation until after the 2008 elections hoping to gain democratic seats in the House.

read more | digg story

4th Largest U.S. City is Prison, USA

by Gary Wood
© October 8, 2007

Do you think we’re free? Every day we hear that is the reason for fighting wars, to protect our freedom. Ask 100 people why we are fighting any war and the majority will answer in a single word, freedom. We believe this because our leaders and mainstream media continue to tell us we must fight to protect our freedom and win the freedom of others who desire to be free yet are not strong enough to stand on their own in defense of their freedom. Remember then Mayor Rudy Giuliani, on November 11^th, 2001 telling us why we were attacked. “They attack us because we’re free.” On September 20^th, 2001 President Bush had this impassioned statement before Congress and the country, “Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom.” It rings well to the ear, we are free, they hate our freedom, we must defend our freedom against the hate so we may continue to remain free and war is a small price to pay in defense of freedom. I will not attempt to deny the importance of defending our land from those attacking us, what I will attempt to do is raise a serious question, are we really free?

I’m not going to tackle, in this brief article, the more illusive ideas of our freedom under attack from the many demands and requirements we face to use the private property we think we own. Nor, will I look into the debate over recent invasions on our personal freedom as a direct result of such heinous acts as ‘The Patriot Act’ or the ‘Military Commissions Act’ which combined place our basic right of habeas corpus in jeopardy. This article will not address the many attacks we face daily on our 4^th Amendment violations, just dare be a veteran entering a VA Hospital for a small sample of this. Among the many directions I could take my focus for now will be on the prison population and the reasons it has reached the levels it has.

With all the wars we’ve entered in defense of freedom it became quite alarming for me to realize the United States of America has more of its population locked away in prisons than any other country in the world today. In the recess of my mind I knew this but to hear it confirmed on Sunday as a part of the promotion for an upcoming documentary by Ted Koppel it raised the reality to my conscious level once again.

I had to do a bit of research and what I found proved amazing. Based on 2005 population figures for both our prisons and U.S. cities the prison population would rank as the 4^th largest city behind New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago while beating Houston out by over 200,000 people. I’ve been to Houston, have family in Houston, Houston is huge! Yet, it would be relegated to fifth place if we considered the population of our prisons.

Not only that, population growth shows the prison population outpacing the top cities’ growth figures which means it will only continue to rise in rankings and within a few years can pass the population of Chicago! Taking the 2005 prison population and comparing it against the 2005 U.S. population figures we see that nearly 1% of the population is locked up! 1 of every 100 citizens, according to our justice system, must be incarcerated. This does not begin to look at the numbers which are arrested, on probation, face charges which result in something other then confinement, this is just those incarcerated.

Well, I said to myself, these are the violent criminal minds among us that deserve to be locked away so they don’t interfere with my family or my personal freedom by harming us. The violent criminals need to be incarcerated, right?

So I further dug into the Bureau of Justice Statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. It was not pretty; the numbers are too large to be comforting but the number of violent criminals’ incarcerated represent 52% of the total population. Just over half are violent criminals that have harmed another of our neighbors in the criminal conduct they pursued which led them to being incarcerated. This would mean the violent population represents the 10^th largest city but it also meant there were enough non-violent criminals incarcerated to also represent the 11^th largest city.

In researching raw numbers of prisoners I noticed an inordinate number of those serving time were non-violent offenders incarcerated for drug violations, property violations, tax violations, and more. Within the drug numbers lie the bulk of those who are categorized by ethnic race. Are Hispanic or African American citizens, by human nature, worse humans than those classified as white? Or are these segments of categorized society merely tempted into the non-violent economic opportunities created by prohibition laws attempting to regulate morality on all citizens.

We know the dangers created by prohibiting acts which violate a majority view of what is and is not moral. History taught us the lessons of prohibiting alcohol as this attempt gave significant rise to underground mobs preying on the desires of all members of society. The temptation was too great, the violation too many, to deny the fact our attempts to police morals simply fails. Yet we as a society continue to attempt to control the lives of citizens through the failed, expensive, and dangerous war on drugs.

No matter what race classification is assigned to humans, there is no race worse or better than any other. We are equal in our propensity toward good and toward what society may deem to be not good. By judicially enacting constraints on human behavior, by attempting to regulate morality, the creation of underground economic gain surpasses the good of a law. Any and every time we enact such moral restriction we fail; whether the restriction is on alcohol, drugs, prostitution, or any other aspect of human behavior desired and sought by humans. The only result is the laying of a trap for those in an economic position willing to risk now illegal activities to satisfy the demands of mankind. Is it a question of nature or is it a question of failed focus in our judicial desires to control the non-violent activities of our neighbors?

In the Koppel report the focus is on the California prison system. It was designed to hold a maximum of 100,000 inmates yet is strained with the overcrowded number of 178,000. The cost per prisoner for one year of incarceration is $43,000.00 (compared to a Harvard education costing $43,200.00) and there is no relief in sight for eliminating this strain. There is no wonder why the criminal justice system and prisons are among the fastest growing segment of our economy today. We are building more prisons to house more non-violent criminals every day.

Let us assume there are 52% of the California prison populations incarcerated for violent crimes, crimes that harm people. The population drops to 92,560, not comforting yet below the threshold of the maximum numbers California prisons are prepared for. By altering the laws to focus on the violent criminals not only does the State of California have the room for the prisoners it would save over $3 billion dollars in direct costs associated with housing those prisoners. Extrapolated out to all 50 States and the savings and benefits become much clearer to the eye.

More important is the question, are we free? Freedom’s definition is easily debated. The fact is we incarcerate more of our citizens than any other country. Is the root cause because our citizens are just worst among world citizenry? Or, rather, is it possible our judicial system and law making system is out of control and busy enacting laws that limit freedom? Are we, as a people, actually less free than the many countries we occupy, defend, and fight today?

We are entering the heart of yet another election year. There are voices on the Federal, State, and local level who understand we are not the free society we claim to be. There are voices of reason among the candidates who understand the root of our problem is not a larger number of bad people but a larger number of bad laws. I encourage each voter to seek out and vote for the candidates who recognize the root causes of our challenges and will work to reverse this assault on the very freedom we are so proud of. We need legislature focused on the needs of society and not focused on the greed of enacting laws which ultimately bind and incarcerate our freedom, which most of us will willingly die to defend.

A Ron Paul Presidency Can Tear the U.S. Apart

by Gary Wood
©October 7, 2007

With his message of liberty and freedom new supporters are joining the Ron Paul Revolution everyday. As his 3^rd quarter fund raising showed, his campaign is building momentum when most campaigns lost momentum during the past quarters fund raising efforts. The average donation was $40.00 according to campaign reports. This means there were 127,000 contributors in this past quarter alone and although it represents less than the number Barack Obama currently has the growth is still phenomenal.

Keep in mind, since 2004 Obama has been getting a great deal of press and during this campaign cycle his exposure, as well as many other media darling candidates from both parties, far exceeds anything Ron Paul receives. His message did reach the grassroots of this country through the Internet, now the fire is ignited and the grassroots are burning, a fire of desire to educate their communities about their candidate of choice. They have passion and there is no waiting for the campaign to organize the revolutionaries, they are self-activating events everywhere. Exposure has significantly increased and is beginning to reach beyond the Internet into the nation’s radio, TV, and newspapers since the fund raising figures have been released.

Ron Paul advocates a significant reduction in the size of the Federal Government, restoring the duties to those enumerated under the U.S. Constitution. He promotes fiscal responsibility and is a strong proponent for State and individual responsibility rather than a national level. His platform also calls for a non-interventionist foreign policy replacing the current Bush Doctrine of preemptive interventionism. With the people being more disenfranchised with their national leaders every day his common sense, straight forward message of restoring the Constitution and restoring true liberty and freedom are driving the campaign to new heights. There is no arguing it is the most staunch, brutally honest stand for the people in decades, especially surprising coming from a major party candidate.

The message of liberty and freedom cuts across race, gender, age, and political affiliations when someone really takes the time to hear the message and then scrutinize the messenger. He stands up to scrutiny better than any current candidate in either the Republican or Democratic Party for 2008. His wave is rising to such a level Las Vegas Odds Makers (often more reliable than public opinion polls this far out) have steadily dropped his chances from 100-1, to 15-1, then 8-1 and now many are carrying him at 4-1 odds. Still not the favorite by any means but with over 80 days until New Hampshire and New York end the timeline for switching parties for primary voting purposes there are a lot more people who can catch the Ron Paul Revolution Express. If, or what many are saying is when, he wins it will be the greatest victory for freedom we could hope for. With that victory those embracing the principles of liberty, those who cling to the hope of true freedom will unite in celebration.

As the victory celebration wanes and the time is at hand for swearing Ron Paul in as the President of the United States on a chilly January, 2009 morning these same revolutionaries need to prepare for the angry cries and protests from those who fear the message. President Ron Paul will have a chance to begin promoting and implementing his agenda and it will be painful, we’ve been feeding at the trough of Federal coddling and care for too many years. States have grown unaccustomed at having so much of the responsibility to care for their citizens it will be a rough transition for many. A large number of people who rely on the Federal bureaucracies, both direct employees and cottage industry workers, will be angry over the loss of their jobs.

Let’s examine just one bureaucratic change to get a feel for why I am sounding this warning to all Ron Paul supporters. Dr. Paul wants to abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing. Now we all know it will be phased out over time, funding will have to cease (the only way to really kill a bureaucracy), final settlements will need to be arranged, and steps will need to be implemented for repealing the 16^th Amendment. However, as this unfolds and the implementation of the planned end reaches its goal there will be a significant impact to many of our neighbors relying on the income tax industry for their livelihood.

Consider there are approximately 115,000 employees of the IRS, the largest of any Federal bureaucracy, with an $11 billion dollar annual budget. Some will be able to use transferable skills and secure other positions but many will reach the status of unemployed before that occurs. Now, consider the cottage industries that have sprung up around income taxation. The next time you are driving look at the number of tax preparation businesses you pass, H&R Block, Liberty (there’s a good name for a tax business), Jackson Hewitt, to name a few. Now, look within the software industry at the number of titles there are for preparing taxes. We’ve only begun however, as a major industry directly impacted by elimination of the IRS and the disastrous Income Tax Code are financial planners. The fact is most are earning our business by the many services associated with guiding our investments through the treacherous waters of the income tax. Remove it and a large number of people will handle their own planning. Now, realize there are employees at all these businesses that will be in jeopardy of losing their jobs.

Initially, these people will be quite upset and chances are good many will yell for ‘justice’ as misguided as they will come to realize that cry is. This is just one industry, we’ve not even discussed those who receive or oversee entitlements, those in the military-industrial complex, those impacted by changes in foreign policy who are currently employed in one of 139 oversees locations, or any of the other ripple effects that will touch lives in a jolting way, initially.

When the smoke clears a decade from now and the nation is operating more in line with the sound principles of the Constitution (as some parts are repealed while others no doubt improved) it will be alright. It is naïve; however, to believe Ron Paul Presidency will not tear the United States apart, sometimes there must be demolition in order to restore beauty. Liberty is not free, it is difficult, yet delivers freedom. The amount of tearing and speed of healing for the United States will depend on the same revolutionary spirits propelling him ever closer to this possibility. Campaign hard, raise a lot of money, hang the banners, continue the rallies but know when you reach victory you must then prepare to help calm the rough times ahead. The rewards for everyone will be worth it. In the movie ‘The Patriot’ Benjamin Martin’s wife use to tell him to “stay the course.”

How do we change the 'Way We Fight?'

by Gary Wood
© October 6, 2007

An acquaintance urged me to watch the Sony Entertainment Documentary “Why We Fight” and I’ve watched it twice now. There was a lot of information concerning the Bush Doctrine and the history behind the rise of what Eisenhower called the ‘Military-Industrial Complex (MIC).’ In his farewell address, in 1961, Eisenhower warned about the dangers this type of standing complex could lead to. “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” It’s as if he saw into the future when our Congress would relinquish responsibility for declaring war by passing this power to the Executive Branch. Within six months President Bush used the power to begin Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Iraq War.

When Eisenhower delivered his farewell address I was not quite two years old and since that time I had never read the entire address. As I did this earlier tonight I was amazed at the wisdom and insight found within the text. According to what I can find this was not written for him but was penned by him, a culmination of his many years in military and government service. According to his son and granddaughter he was a military man who did not like the ravages of war and actually attempted to stave off the march toward such a strong standing military. He often equated the cost of the growing MIC to hospitals, power plants, houses, and other areas where the money could have been spent in improving daily lives within the United States.

I have reflected for hours on the following lines from his address. “We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” Clearly, he knew it was the duty of the people to remain alert and knowledgeable, yet we have not. Unchecked the MIC is gaining control.

Let me caveat the remaining remarks by stating I have not merely engulfed a single documentary and now believe it is fully true and the government has fully been false. As in all matters the truth usually lies between the two extremes. Many have read my thoughts on the foreign policy of the Bush Doctrine and know I do not support a preemptive strike approach to dealing with the world. Whether we want to admit it or not, the United States has become a militaristic country. We are the bullies on the playground, as my wife put it. Our government is quick to flex the MIC muscle at all signs of concern over the direction of other nations if the direction is not in line with our own. The history of our conflicts the past four and a half decades is easy enough to track. The message we are always given is we fight because we honor freedom, liberty, and strive to promote peace and democracy to those in need. In our desire to promote peace is it wise to always fight? Or do we always seek out reasons for a fight so we can feed the complex?

As my wife and I pondered these questions, and more, a very strong realization came over me. The MIC is a huge part of our economy. The war on terror, or as some call it, the war for terror is the latest raging conflict feeding this economic need. Since Eisenhower bid farewell, however, it is only the next one as there have been wars and insurgencies under every administration since. In 2007 we are spending $12 billion dollars every month in our battle for freedom in Iraq, if that is really what it is all about as many respond when asked why we fight in Iraq. We know Iraq was not because of 9/11; Bush admitted on national television there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Eisenhower would truly see many other things this $12 billion monthly could be invested in to help our nation yet this is a tremendous boost for the companies involved with the MIC and those that rely on the complex for jobs.

Increasing demands from the citizens, those whose duty it is to keep this machine in check, are to end the Iraq War. DownsizeDC.org has a drive on their website which states, “U.S. policy has inflamed the Middle East. It has made terrorism more likely rather than less. We seem to be fighting a war for terror, rather than on terror. This policy must stop.” Whether that is true we cannot deny many jobs are directly linked to the war and if we change the policy the ramifications can truly be devastating for many who rely on our military activities for their livelihood. This is the number one realization, why it had not so clearly dawned on me before I cannot say.

I’ve been busy pressing for a change to the policy of preemptive, intervention or what is being referred to as the Bush Doctrine. It is a terrible way to deal with the world, in my opinion. Not only does it send an insightful message, it is leading us down a road where our country no longer resembles a free society where people enjoy true liberty. Let me one last time refer to Eisenhower’s warning, “As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.” We are reaching a critical crossroad right now, we are marching toward insolvency and the MIC does not appear to care so we the people must, you and I.

Yet, that leads me to the question which began this article, how do we change the way we fight? If you are reading now thinking I am about to provide my insights and answers I am going to disappoint you, trust me when I say I’m not that smart and need your help. I am asking this question because it needs to be elevated to a serious national discussion among all of us. I have no faith that our leadership, our representatives, our press, or the companies charging us billions to fight the war will have an answer. Their answer seems clear; war is good for business and good for the increase and maintenance of control over the people.

We need to heed the warnings of Dwight D. Eisenhower. However, the MIC is so ingrained in all States, counties, cities, and homes how can we change it now without ruining our economy? How can we change it while insuring the terrorists don’t come to our neighborhoods next? Please either continue the discussion or start one with your friends and family today. We must change or we will be the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. We need a plan, we need an answer, how do we change the way we fight?