Think Ron Paul is overstating the misuse of the office of the Presidency? Think that we couldn't be headed for a dictatorship? Remember Frank Zappa's song "It Can't Happen Here"? Well it can, and apparently the groundwork is laid to see that it does. Read on.
WorldNetDaily: Bush makes power grab
Friday, May 25, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Ron Paul gains momentum
Limited Government, Fiscal Responsibility
Ron Paul: Constitutional message of limited government gaining momentum
By Geoff Whittington/p>
Sunday, May 20, 2007
During the last few years American news outlets have been reporting the impact of the US Government at home and abroad. Risking job loss and reprisal whistleblowers and journalists have been sharing a list of revelations: warrantless domestic spying, misinformation as a pretext for an illegal invasion of Iraq, the misuse of Presidential signing statements, the abuse of Habeaus Corpus, a National ID program that threatens privacy, economic bullying of other countries, Guantanamo Bay abuses, torture, growing debt, and a faltering dollar. The list is destined to grow longer because the US Government grows unchecked. Every day this faceless entity clamors for more power and funding. It is not known to what extent this government will stop infringing on the rights of its citizens and the rest of the world. Ironically, though, it is this same mainstream news that must share fault: it does not provide the requisite forum to debate the creeping size of government.
The Constitution is the legal framework for American free society and it provides the rules for the US Government. The Constitution was originally designed as a safeguard from tyrannical governments. However, the aforementioned list provides strong indication that something very close to a tyrannical government is coming soon. Regrettably, it is the law-abiding hard-working citizen who suffers. He is forced to pay more taxes, experience a growing loss of liberty and privacy, faced with a bleak economic future, and is offered no effective platform to debate the political trend. The present situation wouldn't be so gloomy had the US Government simply followed the rules.
It is natural that large organizations like the US Government seek to legitimize their activities, expand its power and grow its influence. This is common practice for most bureaucracies. Though for this reason the US government was instructed to operate within the confines of The Constitution. Unfortunately over the years the media has failed to bring attention to Constitutional subversion. The US Government has converted a healthy republic into a bully and debtor by breaking the rules. Thankfully, though, an opposition is organizing itself to reverse the trend. Today America has an opportunity to restore The Republic by supporting 2008 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a 9 term Congressman, physician, and a veteran of the Vietnam war. He is currently seeking Republican nomination for the Presidency. His voting record is undeniably consistent with the limited government ideal. Each time the federal government has proposed spending bills to expand its responsibilities and power beyond The Constitution Ron Paul has voted ÒNoÓ. Aligned with him are groups who wish to increase state autonomy, lower taxes, increase federal accountability, reduce inflation and introduce legitimate fiscal responsibility. Ron Paul's support is growing and his message of limited government is breaking into mainstream news.
The growth of Ron Paul support is due to a number of reasons; future social security problems, war weariness, agreement that the US must cease being the Òpolicemen of the worldÓ, refreshing candor, opposition to Internet regulation, understanding that the size and role of the US Government is unsustainable, concern for further erosion of liberty and a wish for a meaningful economic future. The community rallying around Ron Paul is proving to be an influential group.
Beginning first with MSNBC, then ABC, the National Post, Yahoo! News, Chicago Tribune, and others this group has systematically expanded coverage of Ron Paul and the message of limited government. The media's reaction was first predictably quiet and then soon engaged in damage control. Media critics soon joined the fray and blasted news outlets for failing to provide fair and accurate coverage of Ron Paul and the other candidates. Providing a fair and balanced debate is important to Ron Paul and his supporters because it allows the American people to hold their government accountable.
The media is the fourth branch of government and shares responsibility for the future of The Republic. Due to the failure to provide effective debate on the growth and influence of the US Government media is complicit in the creation of an unsustainable debt, the perilous intervention around the world and the infringement upon personal liberty. The role of government must soon become a focus in American political debate because the current governmental trend is alarming. Fortunately the 2008 Presidential Race is providing the American people with a real alternative in Ron Paul. They would be wise to encourage Ron Paul and his constitutional message of limited government. Allowing the same tired message to be sold in the news threatens to provide similar, if not more horrible, outcomes for the American people.
Geoff Whittington runs a small software company called Fireball Technology Group Inc. In addition he helps connect local experts with their communities at: www.thelocalguru.com.
Ron Paul: Constitutional message of limited government gaining momentum
By Geoff Whittington/p>
Sunday, May 20, 2007
During the last few years American news outlets have been reporting the impact of the US Government at home and abroad. Risking job loss and reprisal whistleblowers and journalists have been sharing a list of revelations: warrantless domestic spying, misinformation as a pretext for an illegal invasion of Iraq, the misuse of Presidential signing statements, the abuse of Habeaus Corpus, a National ID program that threatens privacy, economic bullying of other countries, Guantanamo Bay abuses, torture, growing debt, and a faltering dollar. The list is destined to grow longer because the US Government grows unchecked. Every day this faceless entity clamors for more power and funding. It is not known to what extent this government will stop infringing on the rights of its citizens and the rest of the world. Ironically, though, it is this same mainstream news that must share fault: it does not provide the requisite forum to debate the creeping size of government.
The Constitution is the legal framework for American free society and it provides the rules for the US Government. The Constitution was originally designed as a safeguard from tyrannical governments. However, the aforementioned list provides strong indication that something very close to a tyrannical government is coming soon. Regrettably, it is the law-abiding hard-working citizen who suffers. He is forced to pay more taxes, experience a growing loss of liberty and privacy, faced with a bleak economic future, and is offered no effective platform to debate the political trend. The present situation wouldn't be so gloomy had the US Government simply followed the rules.
It is natural that large organizations like the US Government seek to legitimize their activities, expand its power and grow its influence. This is common practice for most bureaucracies. Though for this reason the US government was instructed to operate within the confines of The Constitution. Unfortunately over the years the media has failed to bring attention to Constitutional subversion. The US Government has converted a healthy republic into a bully and debtor by breaking the rules. Thankfully, though, an opposition is organizing itself to reverse the trend. Today America has an opportunity to restore The Republic by supporting 2008 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a 9 term Congressman, physician, and a veteran of the Vietnam war. He is currently seeking Republican nomination for the Presidency. His voting record is undeniably consistent with the limited government ideal. Each time the federal government has proposed spending bills to expand its responsibilities and power beyond The Constitution Ron Paul has voted ÒNoÓ. Aligned with him are groups who wish to increase state autonomy, lower taxes, increase federal accountability, reduce inflation and introduce legitimate fiscal responsibility. Ron Paul's support is growing and his message of limited government is breaking into mainstream news.
The growth of Ron Paul support is due to a number of reasons; future social security problems, war weariness, agreement that the US must cease being the Òpolicemen of the worldÓ, refreshing candor, opposition to Internet regulation, understanding that the size and role of the US Government is unsustainable, concern for further erosion of liberty and a wish for a meaningful economic future. The community rallying around Ron Paul is proving to be an influential group.
Beginning first with MSNBC, then ABC, the National Post, Yahoo! News, Chicago Tribune, and others this group has systematically expanded coverage of Ron Paul and the message of limited government. The media's reaction was first predictably quiet and then soon engaged in damage control. Media critics soon joined the fray and blasted news outlets for failing to provide fair and accurate coverage of Ron Paul and the other candidates. Providing a fair and balanced debate is important to Ron Paul and his supporters because it allows the American people to hold their government accountable.
The media is the fourth branch of government and shares responsibility for the future of The Republic. Due to the failure to provide effective debate on the growth and influence of the US Government media is complicit in the creation of an unsustainable debt, the perilous intervention around the world and the infringement upon personal liberty. The role of government must soon become a focus in American political debate because the current governmental trend is alarming. Fortunately the 2008 Presidential Race is providing the American people with a real alternative in Ron Paul. They would be wise to encourage Ron Paul and his constitutional message of limited government. Allowing the same tired message to be sold in the news threatens to provide similar, if not more horrible, outcomes for the American people.
Geoff Whittington runs a small software company called Fireball Technology Group Inc. In addition he helps connect local experts with their communities at: www.thelocalguru.com.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
SOS: American Sovereignty, Rule of Law Under Attack!
Here is one man's view, I imagine many can agree with.
SOS: American Sovereignty, Rule of Law Under Attack!
SOS: American Sovereignty, Rule of Law Under Attack!
Foreign Policy: The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions
You would think that Islam has taken over the world as leading religions go...but there are almost twice as many Christians as Muslims according to this report from Foreign Policy.
1.3 billion Muslims to 2.2 billion Chrisitians. A billion is a lot.
Foreign Policy: The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions
1.3 billion Muslims to 2.2 billion Chrisitians. A billion is a lot.
Foreign Policy: The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Ron Paul's Weekly column Dec.11, 2006
Who Makes Foreign Policy?
December 11, 2006
The Iraq Study Group released its report last week, giving the president several recommendations to consider in prosecuting the war. Similarly, the incoming Democratic leaders in Congress promise to urge the President to take a new course in Iraq. Meanwhile, one newly elected member of Congress was asked on national television about the Iraq war. She responded by saying she had no real opinion, and that foreign policy was “up to the president.”
In each instance, it is assumed that the president will make Iraq policy. I’m not talking about the details of actual military operations in Iraq; I’m talking about the broader policy questions of how long our troops will stay, how many will stay, and how victory will be defined.
The media, Congress, and the American public all seem to have accepted something that is patently untrue: namely, that foreign policy is the domain of the president and not Congress. This is absolutely not the case and directly contrary to what our founding fathers wanted.
The role of the president as Commander in Chief is to direct our armed forces in carrying out policies established by the American people through their representatives in Congress. He is not authorized to make those policies. He is an administrator, not a policy maker. Foreign policy, like all federal policy, must be made by Congress. To allow otherwise is to act in contravention of the Constitution.
Library of Congress scholar Louis Fisher, writing in The Oxford Companion to American Military History, summarizes presidential war power:
The president's authority was carefully constrained. The power to repel sudden attacks represented an emergency measure that allowed the president, when Congress was not in session, to take actions necessary to repel sudden attacks either against the mainland of the United States or against American troops abroad. It did not authorize the president to take the country into full-scale war or mount an offensive attack against another nation.
But it’s not simply the decision to wage war that is left to Congress. Consider also the words of James Madison:
Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws (italics added).
So Congress is charged not only with deciding when to go to war, but also how to conduct-- and bring to a conclusion-- properly declared wars. Of course the administration has some role to play in making treaties, and the State Department should pursue beneficial diplomacy. But the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong. No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home. This is why the founders wanted Congress, the body most directly accountable to the public, to make critical decisions about war and peace.
It is shameful that Congress ceded so much of its proper authority over foreign policy to successive presidents during the 20th century, especially when it failed to declare war in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq. It’s puzzling that Congress is so willing to give away one of its most important powers, when most members from both parties work incessantly to expand the role of Congress in domestic matters. By transferring its role in foreign policy to the President, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate.
Go directly to Ron Paul's site at http://www.house.gov/paul
December 11, 2006
The Iraq Study Group released its report last week, giving the president several recommendations to consider in prosecuting the war. Similarly, the incoming Democratic leaders in Congress promise to urge the President to take a new course in Iraq. Meanwhile, one newly elected member of Congress was asked on national television about the Iraq war. She responded by saying she had no real opinion, and that foreign policy was “up to the president.”
In each instance, it is assumed that the president will make Iraq policy. I’m not talking about the details of actual military operations in Iraq; I’m talking about the broader policy questions of how long our troops will stay, how many will stay, and how victory will be defined.
The media, Congress, and the American public all seem to have accepted something that is patently untrue: namely, that foreign policy is the domain of the president and not Congress. This is absolutely not the case and directly contrary to what our founding fathers wanted.
The role of the president as Commander in Chief is to direct our armed forces in carrying out policies established by the American people through their representatives in Congress. He is not authorized to make those policies. He is an administrator, not a policy maker. Foreign policy, like all federal policy, must be made by Congress. To allow otherwise is to act in contravention of the Constitution.
Library of Congress scholar Louis Fisher, writing in The Oxford Companion to American Military History, summarizes presidential war power:
The president's authority was carefully constrained. The power to repel sudden attacks represented an emergency measure that allowed the president, when Congress was not in session, to take actions necessary to repel sudden attacks either against the mainland of the United States or against American troops abroad. It did not authorize the president to take the country into full-scale war or mount an offensive attack against another nation.
But it’s not simply the decision to wage war that is left to Congress. Consider also the words of James Madison:
Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws (italics added).
So Congress is charged not only with deciding when to go to war, but also how to conduct-- and bring to a conclusion-- properly declared wars. Of course the administration has some role to play in making treaties, and the State Department should pursue beneficial diplomacy. But the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong. No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home. This is why the founders wanted Congress, the body most directly accountable to the public, to make critical decisions about war and peace.
It is shameful that Congress ceded so much of its proper authority over foreign policy to successive presidents during the 20th century, especially when it failed to declare war in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq. It’s puzzling that Congress is so willing to give away one of its most important powers, when most members from both parties work incessantly to expand the role of Congress in domestic matters. By transferring its role in foreign policy to the President, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate.
Go directly to Ron Paul's site at http://www.house.gov/paul
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
A foreworded e-mail sent by my daughter
> Jim Neugent is a coach in Childress , Texas .
>
> Jim writes:
>
> My name is Jim Neugent. I wrote to ABC (on-line) concerning a program
> called
> "THE PRACTICE." In last nights episode, one of the lawyer's mothers
> decided
> she is gay and wanted her son to go to court and help her get a marriage
> license so she could marry her 'partner.' I sent the following letter
> to
> ABC yesterday and really did not expect a reply, but I did get one.
>
> My original message was:
>
> ABC is obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. I will no longer
> watch
> any of your attempts to convince the world that homosexuality is OK. '
> THE
> PRACTICE' can be a fairly good show, but last night's program was so
> typical
> of your agenda. You picked the 'dufus' of the office to be the one who was
> against the idea of his mother being gay, and made him look like a whiner
> because he had convictions. This type of mentality calls people like me a
> "gay basher."
> Read the first chapter of Romans (that's in the Bible) and see what the
> apostle Paul had to say about it.... He, God and Jesus were all 'gay
> bashers'. What if she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel? Is that
> an
> alternative l ife style? (By the way, the Bible speaks against that, too.)
> --Jim Neugent
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Here is ABC's reply from the ABC on-line webmaster:
>
> How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of
> stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read
> the declaration of independence (what our nati on is built on), where it
> says "All Men are Created equal," and try treating them that way for a
> change!
> Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of
> stories as your lame crutch for your existence. You are in the minority in
> this country, and your boycott will not affect us at ABC or our freedom of
> statement.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
>
> Jim Neugent's second response ! to ABC:
>
> Thanks for your reply. From your harsh reply, evidently I hit a nerve. I
> will share it with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the
> Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will include it in one of their columns and I
> will be praying for you.
> - -Jim Neugent
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Note: Wouldn't Satan just love it if people stopped using the Bible
> for a crutch? Please resend this to everyone in your mailbox.
>
> -- Thanks, Jim Neugent
>
> I wonder if the person from ABC considered how many people would read
> this
> e-mail!
>
> This is one we should definitely pass on.
I agree.-Fred
>
> Jim writes:
>
> My name is Jim Neugent. I wrote to ABC (on-line) concerning a program
> called
> "THE PRACTICE." In last nights episode, one of the lawyer's mothers
> decided
> she is gay and wanted her son to go to court and help her get a marriage
> license so she could marry her 'partner.' I sent the following letter
> to
> ABC yesterday and really did not expect a reply, but I did get one.
>
> My original message was:
>
> ABC is obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. I will no longer
> watch
> any of your attempts to convince the world that homosexuality is OK. '
> THE
> PRACTICE' can be a fairly good show, but last night's program was so
> typical
> of your agenda. You picked the 'dufus' of the office to be the one who was
> against the idea of his mother being gay, and made him look like a whiner
> because he had convictions. This type of mentality calls people like me a
> "gay basher."
> Read the first chapter of Romans (that's in the Bible) and see what the
> apostle Paul had to say about it.... He, God and Jesus were all 'gay
> bashers'. What if she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel? Is that
> an
> alternative l ife style? (By the way, the Bible speaks against that, too.)
> --Jim Neugent
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Here is ABC's reply from the ABC on-line webmaster:
>
> How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of
> stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read
> the declaration of independence (what our nati on is built on), where it
> says "All Men are Created equal," and try treating them that way for a
> change!
> Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of
> stories as your lame crutch for your existence. You are in the minority in
> this country, and your boycott will not affect us at ABC or our freedom of
> statement.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
>
> Jim Neugent's second response ! to ABC:
>
> Thanks for your reply. From your harsh reply, evidently I hit a nerve. I
> will share it with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the
> Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will include it in one of their columns and I
> will be praying for you.
> - -Jim Neugent
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Note: Wouldn't Satan just love it if people stopped using the Bible
> for a crutch? Please resend this to everyone in your mailbox.
>
> -- Thanks, Jim Neugent
>
> I wonder if the person from ABC considered how many people would read
> this
> e-mail!
>
> This is one we should definitely pass on.
I agree.-Fred
Paul, Not Romney, Won First GOP Debate
Ron Paul, a Republican running for President, is a constitutional believing, Christian. He is NOT your run-of-the-mill politician. But, the mainstream media may not let you know that! Read about the GOP debate results here.
Paul, Not Romney, Won First GOP Debate
Paul, Not Romney, Won First GOP Debate
Sunday, May 6, 2007
That Too Is Apostasy
I wanted to post this to keep the subject fresh to us and to remind us what time we are living in. Also, if you are a new visitor, this should whet your appetite to read further about the subject matter at hand.
That Too Is Apostasy
That Too Is Apostasy
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Europa-How Revelation reveals Europe in end time prophecy » UnsealedProphecy
GREAT teaching about a neglected subject by the majority of the Church. Please read this informative piece!
Europa-How Revelation reveals Europe in end time prophecy » UnsealedProphecy
Europa-How Revelation reveals Europe in end time prophecy » UnsealedProphecy
Progress in the fight to stop the NAU and NAFTA Highway
The "Superhighway" that the government has been trying to cram down our throats, as a tool to create a North American Unity government like the European Union has hit a snag or two. It is good news to me, and I hope you agree. I treasure our National Sovereignty. Read about it here.
Progress in the fight to stop the NAU and NAFTA Highway
Progress in the fight to stop the NAU and NAFTA Highway
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
