An Eagle's Prayer

Click the image for full size and to read this Eagle's Prayer

Beware ANY Stimulus Package

They're at it again, those damnable politicians promising to stimulate the economy and promising to offer a real shot in the arm' to those of us in need. Bush says what will take care of us is tax breaks of $300 or $600 (which equates to $25 or $50 per month for a year) and Hillary decrying his plan as not nearly enough to help the seniors or African-Americans as the party politics ramp up their message.

Are you scared yet? Do you have enough fear in your economic situation to send you scurrying toward what amounts to a dose of Viagra which is good for a few but the many will be negatively impacted by the side-effects? Stimulus packages are being spewed forth from every campaign (sorry Dr. Paul, you're excluded) that will lift us from our challenges and deliver us from the sins of a recessionary economy!

This warning is for every U.S. citizen, these stimulus packages' are not going to positively help the many. Our dollar is crashing on world markets folks. Look into the Sovereign Wealth Fund and then look further into the 7 year plan to align the U.S. and European economy through the Transatlantic Common Market. We buy into these movements if we accept stimulus plans that equate to a total of $140 billion dollars (Bush proposal) and more!

Hilary Clinton, George Bush and all other candidates and representatives supporting this type of answer' knows full well they are band-aid proposals on a major wound. We need to embrace the idea our monetary policy fails everyday consumers; you, your neighbors, and me. They cannot fix our challenges with some sound-good, feel-good stimulation. The only thing stimulation packages do is creating a further usurpation of our liberty. Every great financial crisis has led to an increase in Federal Government control. Whether it be the Great Depression or our current challenges politicians are not telling us the hard truth!

We are in for a rough economic road ahead. The only way we can overcome these difficulties in the long term is to deal with the challenges and demand real monetary reform. I know this is not the easiest answer to accept. I know most want to embrace some Federal program to save us. It is not reality! Reality is foreign countries are controlling more of our economic future and our politicians are selling us short. Study the economic issues and realize there are tough but correct answers to the problems.

Don't swallow their pill, don't settle for less than your grand children deserve, demand we begin correcting the errors of our ways. It's not going to be easy folks, but in the long run we must accept the potential of a crash today in order to save our future generations. Study each of their stimuli and you will see it is nothing more than a false sense of security and we don't need anymore of their false promises, we need truth! Unlike common political belief, we CAN handle the truth and we stand ready to deal with what it takes to insure long-term improvement.

Restore Our Congress, End Elite Rule!

Those following my blog are aware the Republican and Democratic Parties usurped authority in the U.S. Congress around the turn of the 19th and early 20th centuries. They did this by establishing positions such as the Majority and Minority Leaders, Majority and Minority Whips as well as other related positions. We now pay for these unconstitutional positions and the supporting staffs while the reins of power was shifted from the people to these 'titled' positions. This has resulted in an oligarchy rule of the few over the many.

Below are a few important links to further explain the issue as well as a link to an electronic petition you can sign to help send a message to Congress we want the Constitutional structure restored and want this usurpation of power to end!

Article: Restore Our Congress, End Usurped Power
Additional background links are in this article for you to study the issue.

Video: Restore Our Congress, End Elite Rule!

Sign the Petition: Restore Our Congress, End Usurped Power!

I am interested in reading everyone's comments on this issue. Please spread the word to anyone you know who may also want to sign the petition to send a message to the two-party rulers we control Congress. Thanks!

Is Ron Paul to Blame for his Supporters' Every Action?

The lead in a story by Fox News managing editor yesterday was "Did Ron Paul Supporters Cross the Line?" The story referred to their phone calls to the town clerk in Sutton, New Hampshire. Should Paul be blamed for their actions?

read more | digg story

Ron Paul Threatens Oligarchy Rule!

The Ron Paul revolution directly threatens this nations legislative oligarchy.

read more | digg story

Paul Supporters Crucify Me!

I have now felt the wrath of supporters and it is counter-productive to the importance of the revolution!

read more | digg story

Reclaim Congress: Demand an End to Oligarchy Rule!

by Gary Wood
© January 10, 2008

With an ever increasing number of Independent voters it is time to address a key challenge to our Constitution that grips the U.S. Congress. Newly elected Senators and Representatives cannot take their oath and begin to represent their constituents. Those elected by the people are subjugated in status based on a vial, derisive system we have allowed to grow within the halls of Congress. The practice of the Democratic and Republican Parties selecting majority and minority leaders, whips, and support staffs has become a tradition whose control equates to no more than an oligarchy rule over this country’s legislative branch.

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.” At what point did you or your neighbor elect any past majority or minority leader? Why is it those appointed to these roles have a louder, more powerful voice than the Senator or Representative the voters just entrusted their voice to? This ‘clique’ has carefully leveled an extreme amount of power over anyone outside of their inner circle. When the Independent voters begin selecting representation beyond the two major parties this ‘clique’ will be there to silence the voices of voters.

From the United States Senate’s website the definition of party floor leaders (emphasis added) 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.”

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, customary, and extremely powerful positions. Remember, the Senate was to be overseen by the Vice President and the House by a Speaker of the House. We will hear from the Republican and Democrat Parties alike how important it is to have these ‘key’ leadership positions to help the flow of legislation. There will be cries against ending this ‘time-honored tradition’ and we will, no doubt, be warned of the dangers of ending the practice. No matter what arguments these two parties present it is imperative their grip on the U.S. Congress be brought to an end.

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. At the same time these ‘leaders’ are given priority there are many Senators and Representatives who must struggle for a voice while facing the wrath of their perspective parties if they dare speak out against the stance embraced by that party. Where, in this scenario, is the voice of the people?

This may well be the fruition of the warnings voiced over 200 years ago regarding the dangerous, tyrannical nature of party politics. In his 1796 Farewell Address George Washington sounded a loud and clear warning;

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

The leadership of the two major parties in the United States successfully usurped the reins of government, just as Washington warned. This subversion of the power of the people is no more clearly evident than within the structure of the U.S. Congress accepted by the people, until now. Any organized political party, including the Republican and Democrat Party, must not be allowed to control the legislative branch and must be allowed only to influence the campaigns leading up to, not beyond, the swearing in of those we the people elect.

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 rather 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.

We the people are currently being bombarded with the word ‘change’ during the current campaign. This word will become a part of each of the 469 Congressional races soon to be under way. By January 2009 those elected as our Senators and Representatives must be allowed to stand on equal ground so the people of Rhode Island are equally represented as the people of California and all 50 States.

Third party candidates or true Independent candidates will attempt to gain a voice yet even if elected their voice and the voice of those voting for them will be silenced and no real change effected unless we demand an end to the power structure within the halls of Congress. The oligarchy rule, the usurped power controlling the reigns of our legislative branch must be severed. We must demand a return to the Constitutional structure within both chambers and the change must be swift and immediate.

Ron Paul Digs Up Roots: Others Prefer You Simply Smell the Roses!

Ω What is prettier to the eye, the roses on a rose bush or the roots? Of course, the roses are prettier to the eye just as the political, feel-good rhetoric is easier to the voter’s ear. We can smell the rose’s fragrance, enjoy its beauty, and romance about the way our lover swooned the last time we shared the flower’s beauty with them. Of course, we must avoid the thorns or they will prick our skin and cause us to bleed. Also, the roses we presented lasted for a short time and, if we failed to empty the water vase soon enough, we learned the stench of dead roses is quite unpleasant. Despite that we still marvel at their beauty and pick or buy them over and over.

Although the rose is pretty to the eye without the plants roots what beauty would we find? The roots provide the life of the bush, the thorns, the limbs, and the beauty of the rose. The planter of the bush must care for the roots for if a single rose is picked it merely dies soon without the roots but if the roots die the entire bush dies with them and no longer are there any roses for us to enjoy. Those ugly on the eye, dirty roots are the key to a beautiful rose or no rose at all.

Whenever any business or organization is attempting to improve productivity or solve complex problems the goal is to identify the root cause of the problem. There are many challenges that spring up around the root cause. If we fail to identify the root cause and only address the surface challenge problems will continue to blossom although they won’t be as pleasing as a rose. New managers and supervisors often are plagued with spending their day putting out fire after fire while failing to extinguish the source of the fire. Management consultants and industrial engineers earn a good living helping organizations identify and solve root causes of problems. Once those are solved the never-ending surface challenges finally end!

One problem with identifying and dealing with the root causes is the fact they are often the most unpleasant to admit to having. Especially if the root cause is found at a high enough level within the organization, specifically if they involve a key employee or a long standing process that has become accepted as necessary. While working as an Air Force Management Engineer I remember Commanding Officers who refused to accept our study’s findings at first. The solutions usually took less time to implement, measure, and verify with positive results than did the initial acceptance the root cause was in fact a policy or process they personally implemented. "That’s the way I’ve always done it," does not mean it has always been done the best way possible.

It is this basic understanding of the importance of identifying root causes prior to attempting to solve problems combined with my knowledge of the other candidates that really made me finally realize they don’t want the voters to understand the real problems, the roots Ron Paul keeps digging up! During the recent ABC debates Ron Paul once again talked directly about root causes to problems facing us and how to begin solving those problems. Once again the other candidates provided merely lip-service, feel good, empty words. The words sounded good to the viewer’s ears while Ron Paul’s message is harder to listen to. If anyone missed reading Nolan Chart columnist John Armstrong’s article, "Ron Paul: A Man Among Boys at ABC Debate" please do. Clearly Ron Paul dug up the roots of the problem surrounding the rising cost of oil in the United States and our ensuing energy crisis.

When Dr. Paul clearly identified the weakening of the dollar and our failed monetary system as a major root cause he was right on target. Yet, the most experienced and skilled business man among the candidates, Mitt Romney, applauded each of his opponents’ answers to the energy crisis EXCEPT our weakening dollar. He knows without a sound financial base a business will fail. So why didn’t he help explain the connection of our monetary system to rising oil prices? Why don’t most of the politicians trying to gain our vote for President talk directly about root causes?

To admit the root cause is a failed policy is unpleasant and difficult for any person in our leadership to share with the voting public. If the root cause is failed policy those in charge of the policy have to then admit there were errors made. The vicious cycle of dealing with surface problems persists but in the end the bush will die if someone does not attack the real problem, if the roots aren’t cared for. In 2008 it is not a rose bush that dies; it is the very prosperity so many promise to deliver and so many of us want change to deliver.

The American roots are rotting; I know how ugly that is to look at directly. Politicians want us to believe our problems in foreign lands are the terrorist’s fault, not ours. Politicians want us to believe our high prices for oil are due to company greed or dastardly Middle Eastern rulers who control the oil production. Politicians want us to believe illegal aliens are invading our country to merely escape their country’s problems. Politicians want us to believe our public education system is failing because our educators simply are not measuring up to the standards they should.

Politicians want us to believe we can solve these problems by having our military kill the terrorists where they live. Politicians want us to believe the government can force the greedy companies or dastardly rulers to treat us fairer. Politicians want us to believe a fence and more border patrol agents can stop the invasion upon our borders. Politicians want us to believe we can force teachers to perform their jobs better by testing them and punishing them if they fail to measure up. Politicians want us to believe it is not our fault and they can take care of us and provide for us solutions to our woes.

Ron Paul wants us to understand our root causes are real and destroying our way of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. He also wants us to understand the root causes are difficult to solve yet together we can solve them. He wants us to understand by solving the real problems, at their roots, can be achieved. By taking the time to understand, by implementing real solutions, measuring the results, and verifying those results not only can we restore prosperity, we can insure our children’s children will be able to enjoy the beauty of the rose.

Here is a little secret all voters need to understand, Ron Paul is not alone in wanting to attack our problems at their roots. There are thousands of economists, business leaders, military leaders, every day citizens, and even some politicians that will join in the fight to restore this nation to the healthy roots we once flourished with. It is up to you to join those thousands; it is up to you to insure future generations enjoy the beauty of the rose. There is Hope for America if we dare only to understand the answers are in our roots.

©2008 by Gary Wood
- Permission to copy with attribution granted.

The Long Haul Revolution!

There is a sense Iowa was somehow a loss for those involved in the Ron Paul Revolution. Let us not forget what this really signifies.

read more | digg story

To Caucus or Not to Caucus

We await the results from Iowa yet should we even be involved in the caucus process if we are a democracy?

read more | digg story

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.

The Radical Truth About Ron Paul!

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

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?

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.

Election 2008 - Get Thee to the Primaries Survey

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.

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.”