In Closing....

Well, I took my own advice in the last post and took a break from the blog for a while. What I discovered was that I still want to blog. I have a lot of thoughts I need to sort out and blogging helps me with that.

However, I also discovered that I want to alter my focus. I want more of an open format. Locking what I am writing about into the political aspect isn't doing it for me anymore, which is also my own advice from my last post.

Thus, It's a Free Country is going to have to come to a close, as all things do.

Freedom will always be dear to my heart and I still stand by everything I have posted in this blog, which is why it will remain for viewing and commenting and will not be deleted (by me).

If you enjoyed what I wrote here, I encourage you to take a gander at what I will be writing at my new location with the same level of irregularity that you have come to love here:

JACK HAS LEFT TOWN

Thank you for your time here and I wish each of you the best in freedom.

New Game Plan

So, the elections have come and gone and freedom didn't politically gain any traction because strong supporters of liberty and freedom did not end up acquiring any positions, if they even had an opportunity to run.

So, now what?

We keep hearing a lot about how the Republican Party needs to reform. What will they begin doing differently in order to once again become viable? What change in direction will they take? Because, obviously, what they are doing right now isn’t working.

Such questions are to be expected. Yet, I haven't heard any of those same questions regarding those of us who support greater freedom.

I guess there's nothing wrong with the way organizations, individuals, and candidates who try to promote liberty are doing things. So long as "the message" is presented, that is all that is needed.

I disagree.

I think what applies to the Republican Party applies to any party, organization, or individual. The Democratic Party didn't make a comeback from total obscurity to total domination in the last few years without making changes. No one else is any different. The Republicans are not the only ones that need a new direction.

I think it was Einstein who has been quoted as saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. The Libertarian Party, as one of many examples, and its 30 + years of failure to elect anyone to an office of any real significance should listen carefully to this quote, as should any other freedom lover.

You want freedom to be increased at the national level? Then some changes need to happen. We can't keep going in the same direction of failure and expect different results. It is absurd to think that our "message" is the only thing we need to put out and everything else will fall in place.

Obviously, our message isn't enough. America has essentially been a socialist nation since the 30's and probably before (the only difference over the years being to what degree of socialism). This should be proof enough for why not reforming the game plan once in a while is a disastrous choice.

So, what kind of new game plan could we use? Naturally, I have suggestions:

1. No mudslinging at non-freedom initiatives – Let's start talking about what freedom can do right instead of how everything else is being done wrong. No attacks. No finger pointing. No fear-mongering. Don't talk about how something will not work. Talk about how freedom will work. Provide an alternative and leave it at that. The Democrats perfected this during the last couple of elections and the results showed. Yet, go to any liberty website and you will see what appears to be a failure to notice this fact, my own included.

2. Forget Ideology – It's time to focus on what works. Ideology for the sake of ideology seldom has all the answers. What works is often what holds the answers. On top of that, what works doesn't always work forever because of the universal law of constant change (a law freedom lovers seem to be forgetting about).

This doesn't mean freedom is not a good cause. I think it's safe to say that we can determine freedom has been most beneficial to humankind. Freedom works. But its context in relation to the issue is something that needs to be addressed all of the time. Freedom as a whole works, but how it is applied doesn’t always work if applied as nothing more than an ideological concept.

And when we find that something doesn't work or no longer works (and everything will eventually no longer work according to that pesky universal law of constant change I mentioned earlier), we need to be willing to get rid of it and try something new. We need to be willing to experiment as well.

3. Culture – It's time to try something other than politics. Nothing truly seems to take hold until it is embedded in the culture. Culture influences politics, not the other way around.
We can talk about policy all we want. It won't do shit until a cultural setting has come to accept it. One way this can be done is through focusing on self-empowerment. And empowerment exists in more ways than just politically.

You can find it philosophically, spiritually, technologically, athletically, sociologically, psychologically, organizationally, artistically, personally, or any other of the multitude of disciplines that empowerment spans. That's culture. Focusing on one part of culture – politics – isn't going to cut it.

And when we enhance empowerment, we enhance freedom, because empowerment cannot happen without freedom. The more self-empowerment we develop in society, the more freedom we develop. That spills over politically.

Empowerment needs to be the new cornerstone of freedom.

4. Increased Consciousness – This mostly goes out to all the Net addicts like myself who spend considerable amounts of time on blogs and forums promoting liberty.

Live by example.

We can preach freedom all we want but if we're not out actually living it, we're probably not doing a good job of making it happen. By simply living freedom, we expand the consciousness of it. We expand awareness by example. We bring it into reality more. Being out there living it is the same thing as making it happen. The more you live it, the more it exists. The more it develops. And, the more others experience it for themselves. Then, the more actual results we have.

Live like you're free.

5. Neutrality instead of Noninterventionism - Noninterventionism got a bad rap in this last election cycle. The word conjures up images/meanings that could mean many things, to include Isolationism, all of which the opposition played off on to a great deal of success.

Recommendation: Stick to Neutrality. It's the same thing but a tighter description that cannot be manipulated because the Swiss have successfully modeled it as their foreign policy which is extremley well-known throughout the world.

Did I mention it was successful? Did I mention the Swiss provide a working example of Neutrality's success? Did I mention it was well-known throughout the world?

6. Focus on Choice - People like choice, and rightfully so because the more choice you have, the more freedom you have. There is a direct correlation between the two. Federalism is a way for choice to be expanded and provided, including opposing choices existing simultaniously.

Naturally, however, this should not deal with basic, human rights.

Otherwise, federalism is a bedrock of choice. It should always be considered a tool for such.

---------------------------------------------------------

Those are my suggestions. Will they work? Who the hell knows. Using #2 as an example, let's give them a whirl and see what happens.

I plan to follow my own advice and, effective immediately, I am going to disconnect for a while and work on #4. Hell, I might not even come back.

Incidentally, I also started work on #3 over a year ago (foresight?) but never got farther than a single post with a list of stuff. At the very least, you can see a glimpse of an example of what I am talking about when I mention culture, if anyone cares to see it.

It’s a Free Country, but, like I said earlier, I now realize that depends on to what degree. I think it's time to increase the degree, or flat out ignore the prevailing degree and make our own degrees.

Perhaps by doing both we will accomplish both.

Either way will require a new game plan.

A Song for You

For those of you who chose to vote for freedom as a whole instead of just parts of it, or even those who refrained from voting for the same reason, this song's for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKYrppBQDq0&feature=related

Perhaps while we wait, we could live as if we have the freedom that we want. After all, we do. The only person stopping you from having that freedom is you. Live by example.

Joe-the-Plumber and the 2008 Election

Since I've gone so long without posting, let me set a record and make 3 posts in one day, even if one of them is nothing but a picture. (",)

I have yet to say anything about recent events of the 2008 Presidential election in the U.S. So, before it is all said-and-done in just a few days, I might as well throw my pocket change in.

Almost above and beyond all, I gotta say something about all of this "Joe-the-Plumber" nonsense, because I think both of the two, major candidates are not being very smart about it.

First and foremost, Obama's plan to raise taxes on a certain class of people just because they make the amount of income that puts them in that class is nothing short of class warfare. It is also immoral and completely unfair.

Just because someone is successful does not mean they are obligated to pay a higher percentage for society as their fellow countrymen. Again, that is nothing short of class warfare and it is beyond me why anyone would want to elect a President that supports creating more class warfare than what we already have.

McCain is no better. At least Obama has an ideological point he is driving toward, even if it is a divisive and non-logical point. McCain, on the other hand, is being just plain offensive because he apparently thinks the American people are stupid (and they are, if they fall for it).

McCain is portraying Joe-the-Plumber as an ordinary person that the majority of Americans - the middle class - can relate to. Yes, Joe-the-Plumber talks like a regular person without fancy words. Yes, Joe-the-Plumber wears t-shirts and jeans. Yes, Joe-the-Plumber is a plumber.

But, here is a newsflash: If you make $250,000 or more per year (including before taxes), you sure as Hell are not in the middle class, regardless of how often you wear t-shirts and jeans!

McCain's attempt to get the public to emotionally connect themselves to someone like Joe-the-Plumber is exactly that - emotion - emotional rhetoric, and it is distasteful for a Presidential candidate to attempt lulling the American people into such poor reasoning.

Above, I said Joe-the-Plumber was almost above and beyond all that I wanted to mention. Joe-the-Plumber just about says it all when it comes to our front-runners, but there is one other thing.

If you are a voter in America, in a few days you have the opportunity to vote for someone who will not allow any group of individuals to force any other group of individuals to live the way the former wants them to live, unless it is only at the state or local level where the latter individuals are free to leave or to go. That is a free country.

Or, you can vote for someone who will allow a particular group of individuals to force another group of individuals to live the way the former wants them to live, whether it's socially, economically, or both, at the national level. This is not an example of a free country.

The Democratic and Republican front runners can both be compared to the second example I gave you.

I hope you don't let freedom go down the drain like a turd that we will need to call a plumber to come unclog.

Our Leader

Sorry for the hold-up on this post, if there are any readers left here. My brain has been in all kinds of places lately, with the elections going on and all.

As promised, this is part two of my last post (last real post), concerning the leadership aspect of The Most Powerful Man in the World.

The U.S. has no leader.

At least, that is the way the Republic was originally designed. Today, it seems to be a vastly different story, mostly because the U.S. population seems to believe the President is a position of leadership.

It is not.

It is a position of an executive, with specific duties, limitations, and guidance.

The duties are as follows: Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Navy, and Militia (there still is no authority for command over the Air Force or Coast Guard, unknown to most people); making treaties (with Senate consent); picking federal judges, military officers, public ministers (religious ministry? I don't know. I hope not), public consuls, and ambassadors; granting reprieves and pardons; filling up vacancies within the Senate (to expire at the following term); provide to Congress a state of the union as well as recommendations; receive ambassadors and consuls from other places; convene both Houses in case of disagreement or adjourn them; and give final approval to any piece of legislation that is generated in Congress.

The limitations: Nothing except the above can be done (Amendment X).

The Guidance: The Constitution.

Therefore, the President is not the leader of America. America is suppose to be secured by three branches of government composed of many, many people, of which The People themselves elect some of.

Of course, this leaves open the question as to whether or not the government could be considered a "ruler" or "leader" still, regardless of the fact that it is comprised of many people. But, that is another topic.

My point here is that one person - the President - is not the leader of the U.S.

We in the U.S. have seemed to forgotten this, usually by assuming he or she will right all of our wrongs and fix all of our problems, particularly during election years.

The President cannot fix all of our woes. Yet, The People so desperately want a savior, instead of saving themselves, that we have effectively allowed the President much more power than what is allowed, such as unconstitutional wiretapping capabilities, unconstiutional manipulation of wars without congressional approval, attempts to create unconstitutional amendments to the Constitution, and the list goes on, despite the fact that the President has never been able to fix all of our woes even with increased power that the President should not have in the first place.

Our two most popular Presidential candidates for 2008 think they can even manipulate our economy and we'll probably be stupid enough to allow them to do it.

Even our own Vice President and one of the VP candidates claims he has/she should have the power to do as he/she pleases, even though the VP is actually regulated to one job and one job only, to be a tie-breaker for Congress.

It's only a free country if We The People remain neither leaders nor followers and expect the same of our federal government, which should be used as nothing more than a means to help us help ourselves.

Happy Halloween

Better late than never...courtesy of my cuz Donee (or someone my cousin knows, not sure which):

The Most Powerful Man in the World

You might have guessed it. The title of this post is a commonly heard phrase which means the President of the United States of America. And if you did guess it, that is the problem I want to discuss here...the fact that such a phrase is so common and well-known.

Yes, I see it as a problem. We have equated the position of President as being a position so powerful that whoever is granted such a position is deemed the most powerful person on the planet.

Granted, the U.S. has one of the strongest militaries, if not THE strongest military in the world and the President is Commander-in-Chief of that military. So, naturally, it is assumed that the leader of a country which has such strength would be the strongest leader in the world, right?

This is where I think the problem might be and I think it’s two-fold:

1. A lot of people assume the President of the U.S. is the leader of the nation (I have been guilty of this myself) and he/she is not.

2. Power was something of concern (and rightfully so) to the Founding Fathers of the U.S. and, as such, power was placed in check by the laws of the Constitution.

For purposes of length, I will address #1 in my next post. I will address #2 right now.

"Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely" ~ Lord Acton. This is a very well known quote for a reason, because it often ends up being accurate. In writings of the Founding Fathers, they seem to have been aware of this.

Their writings also seem to indicate a concern of such power as one of the reasons, if not THE reason why they divided the federal government of the U.S. into three branches, with each branch being able to check the other. That’s not even counting term limits on two of the three and the granting of positions in those branches being done by someone else, including by The People themselves.

Absolute power, if power at all, has no place in a free country, except with that of the individual. The more powerful those that run the government become, the less powerful we The People become. I think we need to remember this the next time we spout off that the President is the most powerful man/woman in the world.

Perhaps the reason the President is the most powerful man in the world is because we The People are the ones giving him that power by allowing him to break free of the constraints that are suppose to be placed on him by the Constitution. Perhaps it’s time the President of the U.S. once again begin acting within those confines and doing the duties charged to him by those confines – and only those duties, thereby keeping his power in check.

Another quote I like is one you can find right on the front page of this blog:

"You can have no dominion greater or less than that over yourself" ~ Leonardo da Vinci

...You Might be a Freedom Lover

If you enjoy running butt naked down a beach...you might be a freedom lover.

If your favorite part of the movie Braveheart was when William Wallace was cut open, yelling out the word FREEDOM before the townsfolk...you might be a freedom lover.

If you feel a special affinity to animals such as eagles, porcupines, or wolves...you might be a freedom lover.

If your chest warms when you hear the song Free Bird by Lynard Skynard...you might be a freedom lover.

If you enjoy being the first one off the lift after a night of fresh powder at the slopes...you might be a freedom lover.

If you think force should only be used in a defensive capacity...you might be a freedom lover.

If you think Neo did the right thing by taking the red pill in the movie The Matrix...you might be a freedom lover.

If you think it would have been alright if he later wished he had taken the blue pill instead...you might be a freedom lover.

If you like to do things your way but don't expect everyone else to have to do the same...you might be a freedom lover.

If you think it's okay for everyone else to do things their way so long as they don't expect you to do the same...you might be a freedom lover.

If you think we should stop acting as if we know all the answers when we don't even know all the questions, much less all the answers...you might be a freedom lover.

If you think freedom is about choice...you might be a freedom lover.

If you think it's a free country, or at least that it should be...you might be a freedom lover.

Buying America

There's an interesting website called Behind the Buyouts that claims foreign governments are teaming up with powerful, private buyout firms to buy significant stakes in major American companies who are responsible for American defense and energy.

I will admit that I have not taken the time to read through this website. However, I have heard of similar actions before (remember the port buyout controversy of Bush?) and I can say that such a thing can be of concern, mostly because of the ambiguity of it all.

For example, we are in an age of globalization and free markets, which on one hand can be a good thing. Globalization allows individuals to no longer be dependent on a nation. Of course, globalization also has a habit of simultaneously making a nation dependent on the world.

Without trying to make this a post about globalization, let me say that we often promote globalization, for right or wrong (right and wrong, in my opinion), and that any foreign entity buying up American companies is not something we should be concerned with, just as there are plenty of American companies doing the same thing in other nations. That's the free market, gone global.

On the other hand, it seems a bit snarky if we are talking about foreign governments, not just foreign companies, that are involved in buying out American companies, particularly when we are talking about industries involving defense and energy.

If such a thing is actually occurring, should the American people have a right to know that foreign governments are involved in the American buyouts that foreign companies are conducting?

I would say yes. After all, we are not talking about Budweiser that was recently sold to a foreign company, because that company's government was not a partner of the sale and beer is not the same thing as national defense and energy.

Should such sales even be allowed? I would have to say no, if the company is involved in something that could affect national security. I'm all for little government involvement in private business, but when we are talking about private business that involves products of national security, we need to at least take a second look, I think. After all, we do not see such government involvement in sales of companies such as Budweiser, yet they might exist in products dealing with national security? That seems like more than coincidence to me.

If such sales are taking place, with foreign government involvement, it might be beneficial to be very leery. After all, I once heard someone say that hostile nations need not attack us to destroy us. All they have to do is buy us out. Once they own us, they can destroy us at will.

If there was ever a case for buying American, this would be it.

Another Quote I like

"If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." ~ Carl Shurz

What I think is important to remember here are two things:

1. Guaranteeing liberty for your neighbor means not forcing something other than liberty on your neighbor and it also means not forcing liberty itself on your neighbor. It means using no force against your neighbor, period, except in defense.

2. When all your neighbors exercise the same freedom you have, it does not mean they will choose the same way of life or even the same form of government as you.

...And that's okay.

Anything else is not liberty or freedom.

The 2008 Parade of Nations

If there is one thing I loved about the 2008 Olympic ceremony, it was the Parade of Nations. For those who are unfamiliar, the Parade of Nations is when each and every nation participating in the Olympics enters the arena with each of its athletes and "parades" around the arena.

Each group of athletes is dressed in clothing that often represents the culture of that nation. And each group puts forth the flag of their nation in the very front of their group.

Before the parade takes place, a "show" is provided by the host country and this year's was awesome. China did a fantastic job of creating some effects like no other Olympics before with lots of visualization and symbolism.

But, the Parade of Nations, in my opinion, takes the cake.

Here we live in a world where there is political conflict, physical conflict, and ideological conflict everyday and, in fact, all of which is taking place as the Parade of Nations itself takes place. Yet, despite any of the conflict going on in the world among nations, the Parade of Nations at the Olympics goes on with peaceful co-existence, among all nations present.

All politics were cast aside. All conflicts cast aside. Only nations represented by seemingly proud citizens existed. And though some received more applause then others, none were booed. Each were treated with the same basic level of respect. Each were equal in that they represented a different culture and a different preference of choice for different parts of the same world.

There was a nation that did not allow woman to participate. There was a nation that provided health care for its citizens. There was a nation that only allowed woman who were related to those who ran the nation. There was a nation that did not allow gun ownership by its citizens. There was a nation that did allow gun ownership by its citizens.

There was a nation linked to terrorism. There was a nation that believed in free speech. There was a nation that did not believe in free speech. There was a nation that taxed it's citizens very heavily. There was a nation that did not tax it's citizens very heavily. There was a nation ruled by a queen. There was a nation ruled by a democracy. There was a nation ruled by a republic. There was a nation ruled by a military dictatorship.

...And much more.

Yet, they were all there at the same time, simultaneously, in harmony, representing the multitudes of differences we have around the world and the multitudes of choices we make, however good or bad any of us thinks those choices are.

They - the Parade of Nations - displayed an existence of multiple differences and how all of those differences can exist at once.

Because of this, the Parade of Nations, for all its intents and purposes, is an example of freedom. If it were a country, it would be a free country.

A Win for Internet Freedom

A big win took place for internet freedom yesterday that you can read all about here.

Apparently, Comcast was sending fake signals during file-sharing that gave the appearance of certain files being unable to be shared. Some smart guy figured this out, brought it to light, and Comcast denied it (of course). The FCC conducted an investigation and low-and-behold, found out that Comcast was full of shit (big surprise).

Chairman Martin of the FCC compared this deception of Comcast to that of the Postal Service opening up your mail, deciding what they did and didn't want to deliver, and then returning that which they decided not to deliver back to you stamped "return to sender; address unknown".

Just because the Post Office controls the mail system, do they have the right to do such a thing? I might argue that they do not, simply because the Postal Service is owned by everyone, paid for through taxation, whereas Comcast is a private business with the right to do as they please.

However, what Comcast was choosing to do affected more than their business. Their actions affected the space known as the Internet and no single entity owns the Internet.

It is a space owned by whomever owns the countless and limitless number of servers throughout the world that keep the Internet running and each of those owners only owns those servers that are theirs, any of which can easily be replaced by the existence of a new server brought online by anyone else in the world at any time, thereby keeping the Internet free of ownership by any one entity. It is essentially a free "land" and it should remain that way.

Telecom companies might be the gatekeeper and, as such, should be free to decide how much it costs to get through the gate and even whether or not they want to provide access to the gate. But, once they choose to provide access to the gate and the price has been paid to enter, what exists beyond that gate is not theirs to manipulate.

Keeping that which is beyond the gate non-manipulated is the basis for Net Neutrality and it is the bases of freedom. I hope we keep it that way.

Now if we could just get the FCC to loosen their grip on so much of the radio wave spectrum, we'd be all set! But that's another battle to come.

Superheroes and Government

With all of the superhero movies that have been in our theaters for the last few years, this post is way overdue.

There's a concept about superheroes that directly relates to government which many people do not realize.

For the most part, what I am about to discuss deals with superheroes who are of the Golden Era, heroic from start to finish, as opposed to the modern day anti-hero such as The Punisher and Wolverine, who use villainous means to heroic ends. However, anti-heroes have their place in this post as well.

In general, the concept I would like to discuss here is best used with a superhero like Ol' Big Blue - Superman. He is the best example because of the immense power that he wields and his willingness to help us all.

Superman is easily one of the most powerful superheroes in the comics world. He is nearly a demi-god. We are talking about a person who can move planets out of orbit if he tries hard enough, can survive nuclear explosions without so much as a scratch, can fly faster than the speed of light, and can survive the rigors of space for darn near an indefinite amount of time. Add to that the fact that his only weakness is a radiating rock from the other side of the universe!

Superman is extremely powerful. To top it off, he has dedicated himself to the protection of mankind. He fights evil whenever and wherever. He is a savior in many ways and has the immense power and capability to do it.

And yet, wars continue. Crime continues. Disease continues. Starvation continues. Man-made and natural disasters continue. Injustice continues. Evil continues.

Keep in mind all of the power that Superman has. What I listed above is just a portion of what he is capable of doing! With that much immense power at his disposal, it should be easy to conceive that Superman would be capable of putting an end to every war, all crime, all disease, all starvation, every disaster, every injustice, and all evil in the world.

He could be, literally, the world's saviour and float high above the planet as the Earth's guardian, ready to respond, preventing every single bad thing that ever happens. Eventually, he would prevent bad things from happening from nothing more than the fear of his response.

So then ask yourself...why doesn't he?

Aside from the rational, real-world reason that the writers of his stories would have nothing left to write, why doesn't Superman simply force the world to be 100% good? He has the power to do so, yet he does not do it.

Because if Superman prevented all evil from occurring, we would never learn to prevent it ourselves.

Superheroes, particularly those with the kind of massive power that Superman has, are there to give us (mankind) a helping hand, to help us help ourselves, not to hold our hands and prevent every bad thing from occurring under their watchful eye.

I liken this to government.

Those who want to use government as the solution to every problem are those who would see Superman solve every problem for us and completely rid the world of everything that is bad, doing it all for us.

Wouldn't that be a good thing, they might ask? Why allow bad things to continue? If there exists an entity, whether it's Superman or government, that's capable of righting all of our wrongs, why not?

My answer would be that what is right and wrong is not the same for everyone. This is why most solutions should remain at a more local or state level and not force everyone at the national level to be subjected to one standard for every solution.

I would also say that I think government should be one of our tools in the toolbox - a way to help us help ourselves - not the end-all solution to all problems.

I might also add that although government is powerful, it's no Superman. When we expect government to be like Superman, it turns out to be more like The Punisher or Wolverine (mentioned above), or worse.

Yes, it would be nice if all wrongs were righted.

Instead of waiting for a savior, perhaps WE should get to work.

If we expect government to solve all of our problems at the national level, then government becomes nothing more than our master, just as Superman would be if he were to solve all of our problems for us.

Thankfully, Superman does not want to be our master.

Government, on the other hand, always does.

Independence Day

Happy Birthday America! May you always remember that being independent means being free. May you always remain a free country.

Nudging

There's a new book in town called Nudge. It's based on improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness...by way of someone else's decisions and not your own. The premise of this book is a sort of "libertarian paternalism" (huh?).

According to authors Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, you - the average person, if that is what you are - are incapable of making good choices and, therefore, some elite group of folks who are far smarter than you should technocratically employ the best choice for you, hence the "paternalism" aspect of this whole thing.

Where the so-called libertarianism comes into play is that these choices, be they personal, social, financial, etc (an endless list, really), are structured in a way that you are free to choose against them.

You might want to pay attention (which is exactly how "nudging" would fail to work) because this concept is getting big. A lot of people from many different walks of life are taking notice of it, from behavioral economics (where it originated from) to presidential politics.

That's right, at least one presidential candidate - Barrack Obama - is very much on board with "nudging" because the authors of Nudge are also informal advisers to Obama himself! If Obama becomes President, we might have some "nudging" coming our way.

Clinton seems more disposed to mandates (for example, her mandated health care plan vs. Obama's non-mandated health care plan [unless you are unfortunate enough to be a business owner]). McCain's policies seem less mandating, unless you are unfortunate enough to live in another country where McCain's America will reshape it as he sees fit.

Back to the topic at hand, what is nudging, specifically? Well, nudging is about "steering" or "guiding" someone to make a specific choice, usually on a subconscious level, without forcing them to make that choice.

It deals with things like automatically enrolling an employee in a 401K with the option to disenroll. Studies show that if someone is not enrolled with the option to enroll, very few people actually choose to enroll, whereas very few people choose to disenroll if they are automatically enrolled to begin with.

Another example is putting healthy food in a more prominent view at a cafeteria compared to deserts, so that someone is more likely to choose the healthy food instead of unhealthy food. Or, narrowing the lines on a street to be closer together in an area that is potentially dangerous such as a curve, so as to give the appearance of moving faster which causes the brain to think you need to slow down.

This concept is paradoxically intriguing, to say the least.

For example, how can anyone support freedom and also support elitists subconsciously nudging you towards choices they think is best, which is nearly the same thing as subliminal brainwashing?

Yet, how can anyone support freedom and be against something that always allows for the freedom to choose anything else, unlike subliminal brainwashing (and mandates, for that matter)?

Top that off with the fact that several of these "nudges" are nudges that could simply improve safety (the slowing down around the curve, for example), which is difficult to argue as a bad thing, yet many of such nudges could be questionable because they deal with people's finances (the 401K, for example).

Unparadoxically, the questions that I would like to see considered are these:

Doesn't making so-called "wrong" choices offer us the ability to learn how to make "good" choices more often? If we are nudged in a manner that lessons the chance of us making wrong choices, will it take us longer to learn the ability to make good choices for ourselves - the good choices our elitists have supposedly already learned? Will we learn at all?

And, in a world where we are already drowning in persuasion, whether by political ideologies, parties, platforms, stump speeches, big media pundits, religion, philosophies, and commercial marketing all trying to shape our opinions and choices, do we really need any more "nudging"?

One thing could be certain: All of this might be a perfect example for why the practice of independent thinking, free of any persuasion except freedom itself, would be beneficial to anybody.

Just Say No

Hillary, Obama, and McCain were not the only presidential contenders who were able to ask General Petraeus questions about Iraq.

Congressman Ron Paul, who is still in the race although he is sure to lose, was also able to ask questions.

In the end of Paul's long line of questions, he left only one to be answered by Petraeus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWr5Wl-mev0

In terms of Petraeus's job, I would have to agree with his answer. In terms of his individual comprehension of the Constitution which he is sworn to uphold, I would disagree.

But was Paul really asking Patraeus the question to begin with? Or was he actually asking the question to the rest of us?

The Three Stooges

Boycotting the Olympics

There's been a lot of talk lately about boycotting the opening ceremony of the upcoming Olympics in China. A lot of this pressure for boycotting is falling on President Bush, among other world leaders, who has recently indicated that he will still attend the opening ceremonies.

Presidential contenders Obama and Clinton stated a boycott should occur and I don't recall hearing anything from McCain yet.

I have two issues with this whole thing:

1. Do the Olympics need to be politicized? Aren't the problems we have in the world caused by politics? Wouldn't creating more politics to solve the problems created by politics be the same thing as drinking more alcohol to quit drinking alcohol?

2. Our President and potential Presidents seem to be sending mixed messages (except McCain, who has said nothing yet).

Senator Obama/Clinton: The oppression China has on Tibet and the genocide China sustains in Darfur are things America should not stand for, but taking out the oppressive regime and genocide caused by Saddam in Iraq was wrong.

President Bush: We can take out Saddam for the oppression and genocide that was taking place in Iraq, plus Saddam had WMD. But with China, who is itself oppressive and sustains genocide in Darfur all while possessing nuclear weapons, let's do nothing.

What are they thinking? Are they thinking at all?

State Rights - Laboratories of Freedom

I hear a lot of different arguments for and against the issue known as State Rights.

A "no one size fits all" theory is the reason I most often hear to support state rights and I can't see a flaw in that. To assume that one kind of solution - one kind of ideology - one idea only will work for everyone across the nation at the federal level, no matter what the demographic, no matter what perspective, and no matter what external factors is probably folly.

This is where state rights can be useful. With each state government able to do things their own way, we can offer a dish of multiple delights that can appease more than just one group of people. Such a method enhances freedom.

The downside of this, say those who are against state rights, is that if a state is allowed to do things their way, would they not be able to do things that have come to be considered undesirable by most people under federal rule, such as slavery and/or dissolving individual rights?

To this I would say that, normally, such things could fester, if the states were allowed to do anything they wanted. But this is where those who are against state rights fail to take into account something that does away with that concern: The federal Constitution.

If states continued to follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as they are currently required to do by law, then why would we have to worry about states conducting themselves in unsavory ways such as bringing back slavery and/or dissolving individual rights?

States can still follow the federal Constitution and still be very different from one another (and the federal government) in several ways, offering a multitude of possibilities to more than one kind of perspective and circumstance - more freedom.

This is often known as "Laboratories of Democracy". I happen to call it "Laboratories of Freedom", since the results are not always democratic, nor do they have to be democratic in order to be considered laboratories of freedom. The mere fact that they can do things their way, even if an undemocratic way, make them laboratories of freedom. (The federal government itself is not democratic).

In fact, the Constitution encourages this and has written it into law, in the 10th Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States....

Happy Easter!

Politics = Personal Inadequacy?

I found the following quote posted on a blog:

"Politics, as I never tire of saying, is for social and emotional misfits, handicapped folk, those with a grudge. The purpose of politics is to help them overcome these feelings of inferiority and compensate for their personal inadequacies in the pursuit of power" ~ Auberon Waugh.

The blog I found this quote posted on is not relevant, mostly because the owner of the blog tends to throw a temper tantrum if you question anything he posts. Instead, I'm more interested in the quote itself, without even knowing (or caring) whom Auberon Waugh is.

I think this quote leans toward something else I've already mentioned on this blog about the existence of politics not really being necessary, if we could simply focus on freedom. More than that, I find this quote interesting because I think it brings up some curious points:

1. Do politics not affect people's lives? If they do, why should someone ignore that?

2. Politics typically champion a specific perspective, while telling all other perspectives they are wrong (with the exception of freedom, which does not do that). If that is due to the need to overcome a personal inadequacy, then isn't the pointing out of how some people do this and how wrong it is nothing more than an example of politics itself? Is it not also a reflection of the same personal inadequacy?

3. Am I trying to overcome a personal inadequacy, by pointing out the inadequacy of someone else who feels the need to point out others' inadequacies? Perhaps so!

Whatever the case, I think this perspective on politics is one that could be beneficial to ponder, for a more well-rounded, reasoned, and grounded approach to what so many of us are so infatuated with (politics).

Maybe the answer that develops from such thoughts could result in another way to do away with the need for politics, next to the use of freedom.

Pirates and Emperors

Pirates and emperors have been around for a long time and most people tend to think they are two different kinds of people. Yet, could the only difference between them be in the capacity of doing what they each do?

In a world where the U.S. tries to "promote freedom" abroad, does it do a very good job of promoting freedom when it aligns itself with criminals and acts as the very tyrants it is trying to help overthrow? Does political intervention where there is no direct threat to the U.S. actually promote freedom?

Take a look at this entertaining video that I picked up from Liberty Guys and perhaps give it some thought:

Pirates and Emperors

Drink Up!

Prescription Drugs found in Drinking Water

Particular notes of interest to me:

1. A sex hormone has been found in the drinking water of San Francisco, Ca, and SanFran just happens to have an especially large gay population.

2. A mood-stabilizing drug has been found in the water of Northern New Jersey, and many people in NJ just happen to be notoriously angry and hostile all of the time (so much for stabilizing).

Coincidence? One can only speculate, at this point.

Two things to think about:

1. The levels of these drugs we are all ingesting might be minuscule levels, but would that still produce no effect if those minuscule levels were being ingested for decades at a time?

2. Then again, could being subjected to anti-biotics for that long be a bad thing?

Media wants us back in the Gutter

In this article from the L.A. Times, we hear about how Hillary Clinton gained her lead over Obama by going negative. In other words, the dreaded negative campaigning that most people hate (and rightfully so) is what gave her the comeback she needed, as if going negative is a positive thing.

This is one of the biggest problems we have with our traditional media, and it's not just the L.A. Times because this story is in every other major newspaper and on every major news network. This whole thing is a fabrication.

Case in point: One of the ways in which Clinton "went negative" was by running an ad in Texas that displayed a red phone, with the verbal questioning/assumption of "who would you rather have answering a national emergency at 3 a.m. in the morning?"

Since when did claiming that you would be the best person for the job constitute a negative ad?

Here's another one: Obama had an aide meet with the Canadian government, stating that Obama would do exactly the opposite of what he has been saying he would do in regards to NAFTA.

Since when did pointing out a simple fact become negative?

Someone needs to clarify what negative campaigning is and I'm ready to step up. Here goes: Negative campaigning is when you run commercials 24-hr a day that are intellectually dishonest, that take information about the other candidate and twist it in a way that distorts what the candidate did. It also involves continuously talking about what the other candidate is doing wrong and never talking about what you are doing right.

I don't think Hillary has gone negative and I think anyone with a brain can figure that out. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but I think big media is hyping this because negative campaigning is dying out and they want to bring it back.

Negativity, after all, results in strong emotional responses, which is better for ratings. It's the reason why the majority of the news we see is bad instead of an equal amount of good and bad or even a majority good, even though there is just as much good news out there as there is bad.

I hope we are smart enough not to let the media drag us back into the gutter for the sake of their ratings.

The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 (HR 5353) - Part II

So, after writing to my representative and sending the letter I posted in "Part I", I get this slack-jawed response from my representative:

"Thank you for contacting me to express your support for H.R. 5353, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this matter with me.

As you know, Congress is considering legislation that would prohibit broadband network operators from discriminating against various types of internet traffic and require providers to treat all internet sites equally.

This proposed regulation on broadband network operators is typically labeled "net neutrality" or "digital nondiscrimination." Two bills were introduced during the 109th Congress, one by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), H.R. 5273, the Network Neutrality Act of 2006 and another by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), H.R. 5417, the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 that would legislate this type of internet regulation. H.R. 5417 was considered and approved in the House Judiciary Committee; however, it was not brought before the whole House for a vote. Rep. Markey recently introduced similar legislation in the 110th Congress, H.R. 5353, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008.

This legislation is currently being reviewed by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The internet has surpassed even the most ambitious expectations and is quickly becoming the paramount form of information delivery throughout the world. Broadband network providers have invested a significant amount of money to build the current high speed network we rely on today.

The government must not unnecessarily regulate the internet which would impede future development and investment in new broadband facilities. You can be sure that I will continue to monitor this important issue and will certainly keep your comments in mind should H.R. 5353 come before the House for a vote."

Now I know why I didn't vote for this schmuck. It's dipsticks like this that give representative democracy a bad name.

First, he attempts to lengthen his response with fluff about the the bill, which is nothing more than the same information I already sent to him, apparently attempting to appear as though he is knowledgable on the subject.

Then he injects verbiage that clearly indicates he sides with the network providers on the matter, without actually having balls enough to flat out say he does, and he does it in a way that twists my request to be one for him to stop the government from preventing network providers' attempt to regulate the Internet.

It's no wonder why so few people bother to write their representative.

At any rate, my response was as follows:

"I have seen no attempt from government to regulate the Internet, as you have stated is happening. I have only seen your fellow representatives attempt to keep the Internet open and free through H.R. 5353.

Those attempting to regulate the Internet are the broadband network providers, those whom "have invested a significant amount of money to build the current high speed network we rely on today", as you have reminded me.

Let me remind you that those investments and a profit thereafter are already being returned to the providers in enormous amounts of money from their standard charges. If you are concerned about the providers' ability to manipulate their investments as they see fit (and there is nothing wrong with that) allowing them the freedom to alter their charges to customers of their service - the end user - should continue.

But when providers manipulate the Internet and websites themselves, that is just wrong. The Internet is a location of expanded free speech, commerce, individual investments, and the dissemination of knowledge, most of which is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, something which you are sworn to uphold (I hope), regardless of how much was invested."

Marines Banned from Berkley, CA

As many know by now, the city council in Berkley, California has made a decision to ban Marine recruiters and everyone is up-in-arms about it (pun intended).

Of course, this has caused a major stir among citizens, veterans groups, and even some members of the federal government who have threatened to withhold federal money to the city! Having been threatened by the feds, the city government of Berkley is now changing their tune.

The prevailing reasoning for disagreement with the local government of Berkley is that the Marines have been an organization who have ensured that Berkley (and the rest of the country) have the kind of freedom that we have, which I readily agree with, and so banning the Marines from the area is considered disgraceful, especially during a time of war.

However, if the rest of the country is going to use freedom as the excuse for dictating the kinds of choices a local government should be making, perhaps the following two questions should be given some thought:

1. What is the point of having the freedom that the Marines ensure if the use of such freedom is frowned upon?

2. If we expect Berkley not to use the freedom that the Marines have ensured, are the Marines really ensuring them with any freedom at all?

Got Non-Interventionism?

Sadly, no.

As he has done time and again during the current 2008 Presidential Primary, Dr./Rep. Ron Paul has done an outstanding job of pointing out how the U.S.'s foreign interventionist policies are disastrous. You can watch one of those times right here.

Unfortunately, this common sense observation has fallen on deaf ears, since his primary results are now very lacking.

Nevertheless, this matter continues to stand out loud and clear and we see a brand new example of it in Serbia, where the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade was recently torched for the U.S. backing Kosovo's declared independence.

Why did such a backing need to be done? Why couldn't Kosovo declare their independence and the U.S. simply make no comment on the matter, other than how it hopes relations and possible trade with Kosovo can develop, no matter what political format Kosovo chooses? Furthermore, why do we need a piece of American ownership (otherwise known as an embassy) on Serbia's land?

And we wonder why we get the kind of blowback that we get.

Now, on top of that, we have U.S. Navy warships en route to the East Mediterranean, in response to tensions between Lebanon and Syria. Why is their political conflict the U.S.'s business when there is no direct effect to the U.S. and only possibly an indirect effect that can easily be repelled by the most powerful national defense in the world, as opposed to a national offense that simply creates more hostility toward the U.S. and undermines freedom and the example of freedom that the U.S. should be setting?

The U.S. government even had the gall to call such a movement of the Navy "a clear message for the need for stability".

Sending warships is a way to convey a desire for stability?

And we wonder why we have terrorists.

Incidentally, no one here is calling for isolationism. I am talking about non-interventionism and as I have already discussed, there is a difference.

I hope that we can one day discover that a foreign non-interventionist policy is far more consistent with freedom and the example a free country should be setting.

Wisdom

"To do is to be." ~ Nietzsche

"To be is to do." ~ Kant

"Do be do be do." ~ Sinatra

Wisdom is in the eye of the beholder.

What They have Learned

I think our 2008 Presidential candidates, thus far, have learned some very valuable lessons. Here's some of what I think they are, in no particular order:

Richardson - Having so much experience means that you are part of the problem.

Clinton - Having so much experience means that you are part of the problem.

Dodd - The mainstream counts.

Hunter - The mainstream counts.

Tommy Thompson - The mainstream counts.

Gravel - You can't anger people into voting for you.

Giuliani - You can't scare people into voting for you.

Kucinnich - Socialism is not popular.

Paul - Libertarianism is not popular.

Edwards - A one-issue candidate is not popular.

Huckabee - Humor will only get you so far.

Romney - Money will only get you so far.

Fred Thomspon - You have to act like you actually want to be President.

Bidon - Trash talking at the wrong time will get you trashed.

Gilgrist - You have to be in it to win it.

Obama - Being articulate and handsome has tremendous benefits.

McCain - Sympathy for great hardships you have endured will get you votes.

The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 (HR 5353)

Recently, the House moved to pass a bipartisan bill that would preserve Internet freedom - Freedom of Speech. You can find out all about it here.

Here, you will also find the opportunity to send a canned message to your local representative that gives your support to this bill and requests the same from your representative. The system selects your representative based on the address information you supply.

You can edit the message how you see fit. Below is how I edited mine. Feel free to copy it in its entirety if you wish or alter it any way that you want:

"As your constituent, I request you co-sponsor the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 (HR 5353).

This important, bipartisan legislation protects the Constitution's First Amendment of Free Speech.

Phone and cable companies are businesses and, as such, have a right to conduct their business in the manner they choose. However, they are not businesses that sell trinkets and everyday merchandise.

They are businesses that happen to be responsible for the access to something much greater than themselves, by their own choice. They have been entrusted with an unprecedented bastion of free speech.

The Internet is not just a means of communication. It is a location. It is a place where tens of millions of Americans make a living and provide for their families. It is a place where they grow the size and scope of knowledge and expand that knowledge's distribution. It is a place where they stand and speak aloud not only in the public square, but now on the global square. It is a place where they trade and participate in commerce. It is a place where they gain more control over their own lives.

Regulating the ebb and flow of access to such freedom will destroy that very freedom. We cannot, and will not, allow so very few who are already making a huge profit on such a privilege to begin dictating and controlling the outcome of that privilege and freedom, all for the sake of more profit.

Personal profit at the expense of destroying a level of freedom unheard of and unable to be comprehended by civilization until recent years is nothing short of criminal, particularly when reasoned against the First Amendment of our Constitution.

Please recognize the law - the First Amendment - and stand up for our freedom. Join Reps. Markey and Pickering in support of this effort to maintain our rights."

What the Free Dictionary Says

Here’s what The Free Dictionary has to say about the term "It’s a Free Country":

“Something that you say which means that you have the right to do something even if someone else has criticized you for it. ‘I'll shout if I want to - it's a free country!’”

Well, I wouldn’t say that is the extent of it, but such a perspective certainly is a great start to the basic concept of what it means when you say "It's a Free Country".

It's a free country because we can live by whatever perspective we want to (or at least it should be like that), so long as it doesn't cause harm to others.

Critique of the Reagan Library Republican Debate

I watched the Republican Presidential Primary Debate at the Reagan Library on Jan 30th and I can say, without a doubt, that I think it was the most pathetic and disgraceful debate I have seen yet.

My critique:

1. First and foremost, was this a Republican debate or was this the McCain/Romney debate? The majority of questions, focus, and time - a vast majority - was spent on McCain and Romney. The other two candidates, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, received very little attention.

Anderson Cooper even went as far as to skip over Ron Paul on numerous questions, as well as cut Ron Paul's responses off on multiple occasions after Paul merely uttered a few words, only to move back to McCain or Romney for lengthy amounts of their opinions.

Cooper even flat-out lied to Ron Paul by stating he would come back to Paul in order to let him finish what he was saying, which he never did. He tried to do the same thing to Huckabee. Is this the kind of thing we want from our media, deciding for us who we should pay attention too? Is that what it should be like in a Free Country?

An honest debate would provide equal time and amount of questions to ALL candidates. What CNN did in this debate is nothing short of steering the influence of voters by giving more time to some candidates and not others.

It's time we stop letting mainstream media make the kinds of choices that influence We the People and it's time we start holding them accountable when they try such a disgraceful attempt. We can do that by turning off mainstream media and turning independent media on more. Make the ratings drop. We have the power to do this.

2. Not only were we subjected to who CNN thought should be the focus of the debate (McCain/Romney), we also had to witness McCain and Romney snipe, argue, and pick at each other with the kind of arguementive immaturity we see on an episode of Jerry Springer or Bill O' Riley. It was the ultimate battle of "you said, no I said, no you said, how do you know what I said, waa-waa-waa". It was pathetic (I can't say that word enough).

This was a debate for who should be the President of the United States, not a Jerry Springer Show and not an episode of Bill O' Riley. What's even more pathetic is that such immaturity was virtually accepted by the mainstream media and the people at large. I even had someone who I work with tell me that they thought it was a good debate.

Have we dumbed ourselves down so much as to think presidential candidates fighting like 5-year-olds passes for a good debate? Pathetic. And until the most recent Democratic debate, Obama and Clinton are just as guilty.

After the finger pointing, cat scratching, verbal assaults, continuous jabs, and whining like little bitches was finally over and things began to cool down, the smartest thing said all evening was this:





Per candidate, here's a breakdown of what I saw:

A. Romney - A total clown, fully engaged in the most immature debate of "he said, she said" that I have ever seen (next to past Obama/Clinton conflicts). He denied several accusations, only to have his own past words which supported those accusations quoted back to him by McCain and even CNN.

The only good thing that Romney did during this debate was explain his mandated health care plan in a way that actually makes sense, which up until now I have always despised. When he was governor and mandated health care in his state, he did it because he found people in his state who could afford health care yet were going to the hospital without it because they knew the taxpayers would foot the bill. This actually makes sense to me, but I have to think about it more.

B. McCain - A total clown, fully engaged in the most immature debate of "he said, she said" that I have ever seen (next to past Obama/Clinton conflict). He denied several accusations, only to have his own past words which supported those accusations quoted back to him by Romney and even CNN (sound familiar?).

The only good thing from McCain is that he is the only Republican candidate who has really made any kind of concrete effort to address environmental concerns, which is a major issue to a large portion of the country. And, he is the only candidate, Republican or otherwise, who has addressed those concerns in a practical way, although he would do well to add Ron Paul's attention to property rights on his list of practicalities.

C. Ron Paul - It's hard to critique someone who barely had any time to talk. But, what little we did hear from Paul, I can say that the man has a serious problem with charisma. Many people think charisma is not important. I disagree. I think charisma gets the message accross 10-fold. Ron Paul's lack of charisma could be why his message is failing to reach so much of mainstream America.

I think he also dropped the ball in his closing statement, by choosing to focus the entire statement on whether or not we have sound money. He should have focused more on his support for freedom, the Constitution, and how Reagan supported the same.

On the other hand, everything that Ron Paul did manage to say was, by and large, the most intelligent, thought-provoking, and substance-filled information that was stated during the entire debate, as usual. Perhaps that is another reason why Paul is not "winning". In a dumbed down culture that seemingly reveres the antics found on Jerry Springer, anything thought-provoking might not catch on.

D. Huckabee - I'm not a Huckabee supporter because I don't agree with some of his policies, but I have to say that I didn't see a single thing wrong with what Huckabee did during the debate. I think he was practically flawless.

Of particular success was his calling out of CNN's Anderson Cooper for ignoring him (Ron Paul failed to do that for himself), by constantly reminding Cooper that he was also part of the debate. Huckabee also called out the immaturity of McCain and Romney by stating that he didn't "come here to umpire those two".

Most impressively, Huckabee articulated his belief that leaders who make decisions at the top should be aware of how those decisions affect people at the bottom, otherwise those leaders are not leaders at all. I think that was dead on.

Huckabee is also very charismatic; the only Republican candidate left who is (as opposed to McCain, whose personality resembles a wet, paper bag).

Economic Revitalization Plan

There's been a lot of talk and some action as of late about how to revitalize America's flailing economy. So far, the two solutions we have seen are President Bush's tax rebate checks and the calls for us to focus on investments instead of sending rebates.

The way I see it, tax rebates only focus on the short term and calls for improving investment opportunities only focuses on the long term. Neither one, by themselves, are worth the spit it takes to talk about them.

Why only focus on the short term and not the long term? Why only focus on the long term and not the short term? This isn't rocket science. Aren't those we elect supposed to be smart enough to figure that out?

The only good plan I've seen so far (from one of the few people actually proposing one) is one that has been shunned by entrenched media and the political elite...Ron Paul's Economic Revitalization Plan.

It addresses the short term AND the long term in a realistic and smart fashion. I would be willing to see Bush's tax rebates also added to the plan, but even without the rebates Ron Paul's plan is the most solid out there.

In an effort to get past mainstream media and get Paul's plan out for all to see, I'm posting it here. Note how it also includes legislation that has been proposed in Congress to get all of these things done:

Ron Paul, a 10-term Republican Congressman from Texas's 14th District, is currently the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology. He has been named "Taxpayers' Best Friend" for 10 consecutive years by the National Taxpayers' Union. Ron Paul is also the author of several books on monetary policy and economics:

The Four-Point Plan:

1. Tax Reform:

Eliminate Taxes on Dividends and Savings - The basis of capitalism is savings, and Americans who do so should be rewarded.

Pass HJ Res. 23 to encourage savings over consumption.

Repeal the Death Tax -Attacking small businesses and breaking up family farms smothers growth and kills jobs.

Pass H.R. 2734 to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Cut Taxes for Working Seniors - Grandmothers and grandfathers working to make ends meet should keep all the fruits of their labor.

Pass H.R. 191 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits.

Eliminate Taxes on Social Security Benefits - That money belongs to seniors, not the government. They paid into the system for a lifetime, and they should be free to spend every penny as they see fit.

Pass H.R. 192 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits.

Accelerate Depreciation on Investment - We need to help companies grow and create jobs.

Pass H.R. 4995 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce corporate marginal income tax rates.

Eliminate Taxes on Capital Gains - Investment should be embraced and rewarded.

Pass H.J. Res 23 (The “Liberty Amendment”), proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

Eliminate Taxes on Tips - The single parents and working students who earn their income chiefly through tips deserve to keep all of their money. This tax on "estimated income" is unfair and should be ended.

Pass H.R. 3664 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that tips shall not be subject to income or employment taxes.

Support the Mortgage Cancellation Relief Act - Working families who lost their homes should not be punished a second time with a big IRS bill.

Pass H.R. 1876 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from the gross income of individual taxpayers discharges of indebtedness attributable to certain forgiven residential mortgage obligations.

2. Spending Reform:

Reduce Overseas Military Commitments - Our bases and troops should be on our soil. It's time to stop subsidizing our trading partners in Europe, Japan and South Korea.

Freeze Non-Defense, Non-Entitlement Spending at Current Levels. I vote against all bloated, pork laden spending bills and will veto them as president.

3. Monetary Policy Reform:

Televise Federal Open Market Committee Meetings - An institution as powerful as the Federal Reserve deserves full public scrutiny. Expand Transparency and Accountability at the Federal Reserve.

Pass H.R. 2754 to require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to continue to make available to the public on a weekly basis information on the measure of the M3 monetary aggregate and its components.

Return Value to Our Money - Legalize gold and silver as a competing currency.

Level the long-term boom and bust business cycle by passing H.R. 4683, which would repeal provisions of the federal criminal code relating to issuing coins of gold, silver, or other metal for use as current money and making or possessing likenesses of such coins.

4. Regulatory Reform:

Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley - It has seriously wounded our capital markets and helped make the UK a financial center at our expense. Ending these misguided regulations would bring jobs flooding back to the United States.

Pass H.R. 1049 to reform Sarbanes-Oxley and reduce the burden it places on small businesses.

Repeal or Remove Costly and Unnecessary Federal Regulations - Neighbors know best how to help their neighbors. We need to make it easier for community banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions to better serve their communities and to help people in these communities get access to credit and capital.

Pass H.R. 1869 to enhance the ability of community banks to foster economic growth and serve their communities, boost small businesses, increase individual savings, and for other purposes.

Transpartisanship

I often promote decentralized federalism here at this blog, as being the best means to ensure freedom. The concept behind decentralized federalism is that the states act as "laboratories of democracy".

However, I'm not beyond observing reality. While I believe decentralized federalism is the way to go in order to ensure freedom, I also recognize that we are massively diverse in every state.

Sure, some states are more "blue" and others are more "red", for example. But the fact is that the majority of states are more like "purple" than anything. There is a strong possibility that as great of an idea as decentralized federalism is, it can be very hard to achieve its full potential.

From coast to coast, people of all persuasions exist in every state. That's a tough cookie to crack when the object is to have states act as different possibilities. When large numbers of people from all up and down the political spectrum exist in every state, it can be difficult for states to actually accomplish standing for one political persuasion or another.

Movements such as the Free State Project and Christian Exodus seemingly act more like invading armies than free people in assembly due to the fact that there are people of other persuasions already living in the place that such groups are trying to boost the majority in. And those people of other persuasions who are already living there have no intention of moving.

In the cause for freedom, I think it's good to have a Plan B. This is where Transpartisanship could be a strong help.

Transpartisanship is a line of thinking that's been around for a few decades but still isn't well known. What this system does is elevate conflict between ideologies to a higher level (transending) that creates solutions which includes all concerns involved. As it states in the link I provided above:

...transpartisanship acknowledges the validity of truths across a range of political perspectives and seeks to synthesize them into an inclusive, pragmatic container beyond typical political dualities.

Translation: Every perspective is part of the whole truth. No perspective holds a monopoly on the truth. And this is the EXACT same thing I have been saying about decentralized federalism!

Transpartisanship and decentralized federalism go hand-in-hand because they both create the same thing...Freedom. If everyone is able to obtain the perspective they want, that's freedom.

Instead of forcing everyone in the country to live under conservative policy, or to live under liberal policy, or to live under libertarian policy, etc, and creating continuous conflict between all as to which one is "best", transpartisanship promotes communication, not conflict, as to how all can work at the same time, not which one is best. Best of all, this can be used at the national level, not just at the state or local level.

Thus, unlike "compromise", transpartisanship does not degrade original perspectives. It does not create solutions without original perspectives represented and intact, unlike moderation that focuses on compromise where one side has to be degraded in order to allow the other more stability.

I see this as another means to establish freedom, one that can address the shortcomings and difficulty presented to decentralized federalism due to diverse populations.

Where decentralized federalism begins to falter, transpartisanship can keep the ball rolling toward freedom. Indeed, decentralized federalism itself can even be used as a transpartisan solution, which only illuminates the connection between the two even more.

Critique of the SC Democratic Debate

I try to watch the debates whenever I can, from any party. I just turn on the tv and see what I can see. Last night, I turned on the tv about halfway through the Dem debate in South Carolina and was appalled enough to turn it off about 20 minutes later.

Here's my critique:

1. First and foremost, where were the other two Democratic candidates who are still running for President? Only Clinton, Obama, and Edwards were in this debate. Missing were Kucinich and Gravel. What the hell kind of debate is that?

It's this kind of "steering of opinion" from the major media that I dislike. The media shapes voters' opinions in this manner, by only showing certain candidates, and that is just plain wrong.

This issue alone discredits the entire debate, right from the start.

2. All three candidates stated their disapproval with our justice system in that more black people are incarcerated than any other color.

Well, my question is what are all those black people doing to become incarcerated in the first place? That's the justice system's fault? I don't think so.

I think black people are capable of understanding that they are responsible for what they do. Assuming that they don't understand such a concept and trying to shift the blame to the justice system is nothing more than pure racism.

3. Clinton declared herself the best choice to "take on" the Republicans. Edwards took it a step further and declared himself the best choice to "take on" specific Republicans, like McCain.

What I want to know is why we need a candidate who is going to work "against" others in our government instead of working "with" them? Why would we want a candidate who's ready to fight other officials instead of trying to make something work? Are these adults or 5 year old kids we are electing? Did they not learn the lesson of playing nice with others?

Obama isn't any better. He talks a big game about bridging the divide, but his response to "taking on Republicans" was that he saw an opportunity to "bring more people in to the Democratic Party", whether independents or republicans.

So, bridging the divide means getting people to convert to your way of thinking? What happened to working with others while respecting their point of view? What happened to creating solutions based on everything that is brought to the table?

My vote is still with Ron Paul.

Ron Paul believes people should be responsible for the choices they make, no matter what color they are. He believes in hearing all opinions (a.k.a. - all candidates should be a part of the debates), which could be why he is one of the ones the mainstream media excludes from debates, like Fox did recently. And, Ron Paul never attempts to "fight" others in our government. He simply uses the Constitution as a sounding board.

If anything good was said in the debate, I missed it. The 20 minutes I saw was enough.

Worldwide Freedom in Decline

In case you missed it on the Newsreel I provide, this article by Editor and Publisher is too important not to emphasize:

Worldwide, Liberty Declined In 2007, Freedom House Survey Finds

Fewer than half of Earth's population live in places that can be called free -- and the march of liberty worldwide reversed itself significantly in 2007, Freedom House reported Wednesday in its annual survey of global freedom. Freedom declined in one-fifth of the world's countries in 2007, the New York City-based non-governmental organization said.

Liberty's reversal was "most pronounced" in South Asia, but also covered a wide swath of the Earth, including nations of the Middle East, North and sub-Saharan Africa, and the former Soviet Union. Freedom House said the environment of human rights and liberty in countries it had previously rated as Not Free grew worse among some important powers, such as Russia, Pakistan, Kenya, Egypt, Nigeria, and Venezuela.

The full report, Freedom in the World 2008 is available here. There was little change in the actual numbers of countries designated Free, Partly Free, or Not Free. What changed, Freedom House said, was the climate of liberty inside the broad categories. "Nearly four times as many countries showed declines during the year as registered improvement," the organization said.

In Egypt and Pakistan, for instance, authoritarian regimes stepped up efforts to suppress independent media, democratic opposition, and civil society in general. And "group of market-oriented autocracies and energy-rich dictatorships" -- Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and China -- carried out "assaults" on freedom of association during the year, Freedom House said.

"This year's results show a profoundly disturbing deterioration of freedom worldwide," Arch Puddington, Freedom House's director of research, said in a statement. "A number of countries that had previously shown progress toward democracy have regressed, while none of the most influential Not Free states showed signs of improvement.

As the second consecutive year that the survey has registered a global decline in political rights and civil liberties, friends of freedom worldwide have real cause for concern." Among the most worrying signs, Freedom House said, were reversals of freedom in nations that had been making progress. In Asia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines all saw declines in their ratings.

It said "the deterioration within Nigeria and Kenya, two of Africa's most important countries, should be of great concern for those who had hoped that the incremental gains of recent years would continue." Freedom House Executive Director Jennifer Windsor said authoritarian regimes have been using their influence to slow the advance of freedom, while "democratic governments have not worked together effectively to counter these trends."

Overall, Freedom House said, the number of countries considered Free in 2007 stood unchanged at 90, representing 46% of the global population. The number of Partly Free countries increased to 60, or 18% of the world population, with the move of Thailand and Togo from the Not Free category.In 2007, Freedom House said, 36% of the world's population lived in the 43 countries it deems Not Free. North America and, "with a few exceptions," Western Europe received the highest ratings on the Freedom House index.

"However, the flawed response to an upsurge in immigration in Europe and the U.S. has revealed potentially serious imperfections in these countries' democratic systems, especially in Western Europe," the NGO said. "Furthermore, they continued to grapple with problems posed by the continued threat of Islamic terrorism.

"The United States was rated 1 on a 1 to 7 scale, with [1] being the most free."

New National Symbol

My Response to The Luddite

Being a supporter of Rep./Dr. Ron Paul for President, I tried to respond to an article I read at Wired, written by Tony Long. I was only allowed a certain amount of characters in my response, and I couldn't cut the response down enough without missing some key points.

So, I decided to post my response to excerpts of the article here and invited The Luddite (as my response) to view. It is as follows and I ask that everyone pay particular attention to response #13:

These days, our federal government is being pushed toward the warfare/welfare state, divided along bitter, partisan lines. This creates a kind of fog that is difficult to see through. The viewpoints you have selected in your article about Ron Paul display a misunderstanding that the warfare/welfare federal state creates.

I hope I can clear up some of that confusion:

1. "You can't be a good president in the 21st century when your chief concerns are the sovereignty of the American taxpayer and his right to bear arms."

Actually, the sovereignty of the American taxpayer is the sole reason for the existence of our government, to protect our rights, establish a reliable place for investment, and establish freedom. This is a fact that history proves.

And, the right to bear arms is our last resort to ensure that such an existence happens.

Nothing could be more important and a president that doesn't recognize such importance is a president that has no connection with the foundation of America or with an understanding of freedom.

2. "Isolationism is no longer an option."

Agreed, which is why Ron Paul is not calling for isolationism. He's calling for non-interventionism. There is a difference. Isolationism means having nothing to do with other countries. Non-interventionism means having nothing to do with other countries' conflicts and disagreements, yet still trading with them, interacting with them, traveling to them, and speaking to them.

3. "And this guy wants to pull us out of the United Nations."

The Founding Fathers' advice for us was "alliances with none". Alliance with foreign nations erodes our sovereignty, by dictating what we should do, who we should fight, and whom we should support. That's not the mark of a free country.

4. "Speaking of babies, his libertarian defense of individual rights doesn't extend to women, apparently."

Yes, it does, except when a woman attempts to deny the individual rights of another life – the baby. As well, Ron Paul has indicated that this is his "personal" opinion, not to interfere with denying the right to life only with due process, as stated in Amendment 14 of the Constitution.

5. "More specifically, he supports a state's right to ban abortion."

Again, Amendment 14 of the Constitution - ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Personally, I say that Roe vs. Wade is sufficient because it is due process of law. Though Roe vs Wade is federal, the Constitution does not specify that due process must be state or federal for a right to life. Anyway, I'm simply explaining where Ron Paul's stance is coming from.

5. "That's a new one on me: turning the stem cell debate into a taxpayer-rights issue...His chief concern isn't so much the morality of the research as who pays for it."

The morality of the issue has everything to do with who pays for it. Being forced to pay for a federal government program that goes against one's religion in a free country is morally wrong.

6. "States rights is a major plank in the Paul platform."

States rights are what ensures that we are a free country. Instead of imposing one ideological stance on the entire country (i.e. – conservative, liberal, socialist, libertarian, etc), state governments offer us the opportunity to have multiple preferences exist at the same time! That's freedom. And it only works if federal government stays limited.

7. "Paul says the federal government has helped damage the environment by "facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the national forests and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help."

They haven't?

8. "If Chauncey Moneybags owns 40,000 acres up near the Idaho-Montana border and decides to cash in by letting the timber boys do a little clear-cutting, who's going to stop him? Paul says Chauncey can do whatever he wants to with his land. How is that helping the natural environment?"

Consider these three points:

A. Doesn’t the "common person" such as you and me own land as well? Even if our land amount is much smaller than Mr. Moneybags's land amount, how small is it when you add up ALL of the common people that own land?

Point: If you care about the environment, who better to protect it than yourself (why are we relying on the government to do what we can do ourselves)?

The more land that is owned by those who care about it, the more it will stay safe. And most people, even if they are not huge environmentalists, are going to care about the property that they own, because they have paid for it.

B. If I hold private property and you cause pollution to enter it, that goes against the law because you are causing damage to my private property. The more private property that is held, the more pollution will be penalized by the law.

C. Ron Paul has never supported doing away with government penalties for pollution nor has he supported doing away with ALL public land nor has he not supported private enterprise creating green technology. Although government should be doing something to promote green technology (I think), why are we relying on the government alone to do it (again, why not do more things for ourselves)?

9. "If there is anti-American sentiment along the East River these days, it's because we're swaggering around like the high school bully, and we've pissed a lot of people off."

Agreed. And Ron Paul agrees as well.

10. "As for military matters, Paul's objection to the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not that we ignored world opinion and attacked unilaterally, but that we violated the Washingtonian-Jeffersonian doctrine of "avoiding foreign entanglements."

Not to mention that it also violates Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution by sending us to war without a Declaration of War from Congress, which is Ron Paul's main objection.

11. "George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have been dead for two centuries. Our world is just ever so slightly different from the one they knew. Realities have changed."

Agreed. In fact, Thomas Jefferson advocated making changes that reflected new realities for new generations. The Founding Fathers even went as far as to create a system for us to do that. It's called amending the Constitution.

12. "The modern world is all about interaction, interdependence and active engagement, not isolationism."

Agreed, though I don't approve of interdependence. At any rate, see #2.

13. "Fine. I'm a fool. But when push comes to shove, I'd rather be my kind of fool than yours."

There's nothing wrong with that. Being your kind of fool is what freedom is all about. And those states rights that you seem leery of supporting are the exact thing capable of allowing you to be your kind of fool as opposed to being my kind of fool. Again, that can only happen with the kind of limited federal government that Ron Paul supports.

New Hampshire

Remember when I said, "Here's to hoping that voters in New Hampshire do a better job of taking care of our national freedom" in my last post? Well, so much for that.

New Hampshire, arguably the most freedom-minded state in the union, voted for Clinton and McCain, two candidates who have have no issue with nation building, or forced government health care, or corporate subsidies, or the federal government conducting domestic spying without reasonable cause and acting on what it finds without oath or affirmation, to name just a few, tasty treats that come with those candidates.

Before I say anything else, I'll say this:

1. Wow.

2. The Free State Project might want to re-evaluate where it has decided to set up shop.

Moving on, I must also say that McCain was elected because of his tendency to supposedly "bridge the partisan divide", though I think he does it in a way that often dilutes the original perspectives, which is not the way to bridge a divide.

Clinton was elected on her new development of honesty, after her breakdown in front of voters and a brief moment of crying. New Hampshire voters then saw her as open and honest.

Judging by Iowa and now New Hampshire, it seems that honesty and bridging the partisan divide are going to be in great demand this election. And, these are important traits in our elected officials because both traits enhance our freedom.

But perhaps one should ask where honesty and bridging the divide stop and where the candidates' actual POLICIES, such as the ones I mentioned above, start.

No Love for Iowa

So, the Iowa Caucuses have come and gone, and it appears that voters in Iowa prefer force placed on them instead of freedom.

Iowans voted for a man who would force all employers to pay for our health care or be forced to contribute toward a national health insurance plan that the rest of us will be forced to pay for through higher taxation as well.

This is regardless of the fact that an amendment in the Constitution says powers not listed in the Constitution are granted to the states or the people (10th Amendment). Health care of the people is not listed in the Constitution as a responsibility of the federal government. Therefore, health care is a state or individual issue (which can open the door for multiple possibilities).

Not only does Obama ignore the Constitution (or doesn't know it), he sets an example of force instead of freedom in a free country.

Iowans also voted for a man who would push for a Constitutional amendment that bans marriage and all of the legal rights associated with marriage from certain people based on their chosen sexuality, while continuing to grant such rights in marriage to people who choose a different sexuality, essentially dictating what kind of sexuality we should all have.

This is regardless of the fact that an amendment already exists in the Constitution which forbids creating new amendments that deny rights to some while are granted to others (9th Amendment).

Not only does Huckabee ignore the Constitution (or doesn't know it), he sets an example of force instead of freedom in a free country.

In Iowa, such force is perfectly fine, if that's what they want (freedom provides that). But the rest of the country is not Iowa.

Don't get me wrong, Obama and Huckabee have their good points. Obama wants to move past partisan politics. Huckabee wants to eliminate the income tax. These things can be good for freedom, if done properly (no cherry picking of partisanship to move past and no replacement of one tax for another).

But why vote for a candidate who has good traits when they also have bad traits that weigh just as heavily, if not more? Are traits that abuse freedom in a free country traits worth ignoring?

All of this is regardless of the fact that there exists a candidate who knows what the Constitution says and who sets an example of freedom instead of force - the kind of freedom that would allow the kind of force Iowans want in a state that wanted it, so long as it stayed within that state instead of expanding across the entire country.

That candidate is Ron Paul.

Here's to hoping that voters in New Hampshire do a better job of taking care of our national freedom.

A Quote I Like

I started the new year out by touring the sights in Washington D.C. One of my favorite monuments was the Thomas Jefferson Memorial.

Here's a quote I like from the man himself, etched in a circular fashion around the ceiling inside the memorial, high above all other quotes of his that are placed on the walls:

“I have sworn upon the alter of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

Happy New Year

Happy New Year to everyone and I hope you get a chance to celebrate! I'll be back on the 3rd or 4th.

Mortgage Crisis

The Federal Reserve is bailing out a lot of people that took on loans they cannot afford - otherwise known as the mortgage crises currently underway in the U.S. – by loaning $20 Billion dollars of our stolen federal tax money to banks nationwide. I’m sure more than that is on the way.

I think the rest of the country - the approximately 90% of us who did not make irresponsible choices, loans, and quests for money at the expense of others - are getting the short end of the stick.

We hear, “The Federal Reserve is going to help”, “The Feds are stepping in”, and “Washington’s trying to prevent the mortgage crisis” but what they are really saying is that you and I are going to save the day by turning our pockets inside out and having our stolen tax dollars pay for it all (at least they're going to something other than pork).

I’m going to skip over the obvious question about why shouldn’t those who made bad choices be held responsible, to include buyers and loan companies. I've heard that question already asked time and again with no results, even though the answer should be simple.

Therefore, I will instead focus on a question that has yet to be asked:

If a bailout is going to occur, why not at a lower level?

If the states handled this, instead of the federal government, that would relieve a lot of burden on taxpayers nationwide. Take the states of Virginia and California, for instance.

The population in California is far greater than that of Virginia. If the states conducted the bailout, the residents of Virginia wouldn’t have to pay for all the foreclosures in their state AND all the foreclosures in California, of which there is a far greater number of in California due to a much larger population.

Likewise for California. Virginia might have a smaller population than California, but any added amount of population is more than what you had to start with.

What about housing prices? There is a drastic difference in housing prices between states like Mississippi and Massachusetts. Why should tax dollars from residents in Mississippi be used to pay for the foreclosures of homes in Massachusetts, which are a far greater price in Massachusetts than they are in Mississippi?

How is that fair to residents of Mississippi, whose income and cost-of-living is much lower than the income and cost-of-living in Massachusetts? Factor in the population differences I mentioned a moment ago, along with the income and cost-of-living differences, and you can see we have a real problem that the federal government isn’t even considering.

And if taking it down to the state level makes more sense, which I think it does, what about an even lower level, like city, town, or county? How much more fairly distributed would the bailout be then?

What about the lowest level possible – the individual level? I’ve already talked about how places like Prosper.com are empowering the people themselves to break the monopoly of banks.

It’s time we start relying more on our own, localized ways and means of handling such issues. A state, local, or individual solution will always be fairer, more efficient, and more responsible than a oversized, careless, and wasteful federal bailout.

The Pledge of Allegiance

I think The Pledge of Allegiance should be abolished, along with any requirement for an oath of allegiance during an immigrant's naturalization.

Some people might say that such a desire is not very patriotic. I would argue that such a desire is extremely patriotic. It’s a Free Country, and standing up for that freedom is what makes one a patriot, not allegiance.

Freedom and allegiance are not the same thing. In fact, they are polar opposites. Allegiance requires you to blindly support something, regardless of right or wrong.

If you have allegiance, you do not ask questions, you do not think for yourself, you do what is expected of you, you support something at all costs. Freedom, on the other hand, enables you to ask questions, think for yourself, act as best you see fit, and choose whether you want to support something or not.

Allegiance is for dictatorships. Freedom is for free countries.

Granted, allegiance can be given voluntarily and often is, and there is nothing wrong with such a choice if that's what you want. Freedom leaves room for that as well!

But if it's freedom itself that you want, any requirement for allegiance is a sure sign that freedom is not the top priority.

I seldom see adult citizens in the U.S. having to conduct The Pledge of Allegiance (a good thing). However, our public schools conduct it in front of our children everyday before school starts and promotes their participation. An oath of allegiance is also expected of our legal immigrants who are going through the process of naturalization.

Luckily, in public schools, our kids are no longer required to say the Pledge if they don't want to say it, but the fact is that such exposure to allegiance is still being conducted every school day in front of young and impressionable minds, year after year.

Isn't it odd that such a practice is conducted in front of those young and impressionable minds year after year but seldom, if ever, around adults who are not as impressionable?

Immigrants who are trying to become citizens of our free country are also in the position of having to recite an oath of allegiance and, unlike our children, they are not allowed the option of skipping it. On the other hand, they are not exposed to it year after year like our kids.

As I mentioned earlier, my whole point is that allegiance and freedom are not the same thing.

Merry Christmas!

I'll be back on the 27th. In the meantime, here's a Christmas poem for you to enjoy:

'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the land,

No candidate was stirring, or shaking a hand.

The presents were wrapped-up under the tree,

In hopes that this Christmas could be campaign-free.

The voters were nestled all snug in their beds,

While visions from TV ads danced in their heads.

My sister in Dubuque and I here in Keene,

Tried hard to forget all the debates we had seen.

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,

I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.

If they'd found our lawn boy out by the shack,

Tancredo and Hunter would never come back.

The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow,

Gave luster to yard signs posted below.

When what should appear to my wondering eye?

A van with the bumper strip, "Live free or die."

With a little old driver, so lively and plain,

I knew in a moment it could be McCain.

But when I saw the sign saying "Peace to you all",

I imagined Kucinich, Gravel or even Saint Paul.

Like eagles, the reporters following him came.

He whistled, and shouted, and called them by name!

"Now Russert! Now Matthews! Olbermann, Schieffer,

On Broder, on Stephanopoulous, on Lehrer, on Blitzer."

It may be Christmas but we all have our jobs.

So, "On Stewart, Colbert, O'Reilly, and Dobbs,

To the top of the world, to the top of it all.

Come push me on up; or at least break my fall."

As some candidates do when caught in a lie,

Climb up on their pedestal, high in the sky.

So up to the house-top the entourage flew,

With a sack full of earmarks and promises too.

And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof,

The prancing and pandering of each little hoof.

As I drew in my head, and was turning around,

Down the chimney the next President came with a bound.

He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,

And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot.

Soot on his clothes and soot in his hair,

That ruled out both Edwards and Romney right there.

His eyes, how they twinkled! His dimples how merry!

Alan Keyes he was not; he just wasn't scary!

His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,

And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow.

First I thought Biden and then I thought Dodd.

But it was all make-up, so white hair wasn't odd.

That's it! Actor's make-up removed all the doubt,

Except he was lively and quick, so Thompson was out.

The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,

And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath.

That ruled out Obama, unless he was joking,

When he promised us all that he had stopped smoking.

He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,

Bill Richardson maybe - or Huckabee's old self.

But a wink of his eye and a shake of his head,

Let me know I was wrong without a word said.

As he filled each stocking with an American flag,

I thought, "Isn't this sort of like Rudy in drag?"

That's it. That's it. Think girls not boys.

Is Hillary the President handing out toys?

Santa sprang to the van, got the press on their bus,

And as they drove out of sight, called back to us:

"Merry Christmas to all, and don't ever forget,

Maybe the next President's not in the race yet."

Billions

We hear that word - Billions - often.

It is a word uttered by politicians from governments world-wide, particularly in America. When talking about money, politicians mention that word with ease, often, and without remorse. Why should they be remorseful? After all, 99.9% of that money is not theirs, if any of it at all.

Politicians casually toss around the word Billions like it's nothing. We hear that number so often that it has come to mean very little to us. But, the fact is that it DOES mean something. It means a LOT of YOUR money, and that goes for any country.

Steve Rankin, over at Free Citizen , sent me an interesting list that was composed by an advertising agency to help put the number Billion into perspective. At the risk of my arithmetic math skills, I tweaked what he sent me and came up with this:

1. A billion seconds ago it was 1972.

2. A billion minutes ago Jesus had finished walking the Earth 7 years prior.

3. A billion hours ago Neanderthals existed.

4. A billion days ago the formation of the Arctic polar ice cap occurred.

5. A billion dollars ago happened yesterday and is continuing to happen everyday, at the rate our federal government is spending it.

Keeping that in mind, think about the 9 Trillion in debt that we have!

Common Ground

A limited federal government overseeing multiple state governments that each provide a different possibility of government is a result of being unable to find common ground. In the search for freedom, such a solution makes sense.

No matter what community we are part of, we are each individuals. Each of us is different, no matter how much we try to become the same. We each want different things. We each have different perspectives (more to come on this later). We each have a different meaning of freedom (well, some of us have the same meaning, but certainly not all of us).

A decentralized federation is the perfect solution to the completely human problem of not finding common ground in all areas. Such a problem is perfectly normal, as a difference of opinion is what it means to be human and what it means to have liberty.

But, just because we have a government setup designed to deal with such a problem, does that mean we should never bother searching for common ground? On the contrary, I think the search for common ground is more important than ever, because of our situation.

If we live in a government designed to overcome our lack of common ground (which is the case), then it seems to me that it would be important to pay attention to any of the few times we do have common ground.

This could mean something like what I wrote in my last post about voting with your feet, or it could mean establishing a Bill of Rights that includes a various assortment of common ground everyone can agree to, such as freedom of speech and the right to be secure in our own homes.

Sometimes, however, common ground is more difficult to be found. This is because people who have something to lose if we find common ground often disguise the common ground we have. Politicians, pundits, and lobbyists are guilty of this.

For example, we are often led to believe there is nothing in common with those who are pro-life and pro-choice, with those who support drilling for more oil domestically and those who would rather see us use renewable resources instead, and those who support gun ownership and those who don’t.

All Constitutional answers aside, there is common ground to be found among those places where we are supposed to believe there are none.

For instance, the same motivation that drives those who support drilling for more oil domestically is the same for those who would rather see us use renewable resources: A desire for American energy independence.

Contrary to pro-lifers’ belief, those who are pro-choice do not like the idea of abortion. Their argument is not based on the enjoyment of abortion. No one really likes abortion.

Those who would see us with guns and those who would not have the same reason for both: Safety.

If we look past rhetoric, we can often find common ground where we are frequently told there is none.

Does common ground enhance freedom? I think it does. If there is no opposition to your preference, that is freedom. Having multiple state governments is a means to avoid opposition to our preferences and establish such freedom. Such a design is a macro example of common ground itself.

Therefore, I think it would be safe to say that seeking out actual common ground to the best of our ability could always be a worthy endeavor that enhances freedom.

It’s a Free Country!

Free State Project

I want to place the spotlight on a couple of website banners I provide on this blog and I will start with the Free State Project. They are the perfect example of freedom.

The Free State Project embodies all that I talk about here, in regards to how we can all be free through a decentralized federation. I've mentioned numerous times that what makes us a free country is the fact that we have (are supposed to have) a limited federal government that protects and organizes a collection of smaller state governments (they could be called providences, cantons, or whatever) while ensuring natural rights to all individuals.

Each one of those state governments, although dictated to be republican forms of government (one of my grievances with the Constitution), are capable of providing different laws that equate to different levels of government involvement in people's lives. Each one is capable of providing a different possibility.

Someone was smart enough to realize that freedom does not just come in the form of extremely limited government, nor does it just come in the form of controlling, big government, nor does it just come in the form of some moderate version of government involvement, nor just in any other particular level of government. It comes in all forms.

What means freedom to me might not mean freedom to you. For example, many people view government leaving them alone as a form of freedom, while many others view government taking care of them as a form of freedom, and there are many other views in-between.

How can one nation ever hope to accommodate every citizen's viewpoints? More importantly, how can any nation accommodate differing viewpoints without forcing a single ideology on everyone that only a portion of the electorate agree with?

Answer: A limited federal government that ensures natural, individual rights, while protecting and organizing any number of smaller state governments that each provide any number of possibilities.

The folks over at the Free State Project have realized this. They are people who prefer minimal government and they have recognized the state of New Hampshire as having a government that provides their preference. So, they are trying to get as many people who think like them as possible to move to New Hampshire and swell the already large number of people that think like they do.

This is what having multiple state governments which can provide multiple possibilities is all about! Your preference can and should be found in any number of state governments that exist. Any state government can and should be shaped by voters and voters with similar desires can and should group together to form the types of government they want.

That's freedom.

The Free State Project is trying to do exactly that. With enough like-minded people in a chosen state (New Hampshire, in this case), the kind of voting taking place in that state will reflect the kind of government they want. This is what it means to Vote with Your Feet.

So long as we have a limited federal government, we can have any other level of government that provides what we all want at the state level. That's why It's a Free Country. I applaud the Free State Project for utilizing what is available to all of us.

Divided We Stand, United We Fall

I came across a very interesting blog the other day called Divided We Stand, United We Fall.

This unique site declares that divided government is better for us than unified government. By divided, I mean an executive branch and legislative branch controlled by separate parties, whereas by unified I mean one-party rule over both branches.

DWSUWF states that we are best served by voting in such a manner that we continuously divide our government and pit the parties against each other into gridlock.

Federally speaking, this would be a good thing! The less our federal government does, the more freedom we have at the federal level to do what we want at the state level, with 50 different possibilities. November 2006 was a good example of people voting in this manner, breaking the one-party rule we had for 6 years.

DWSUWF even goes as far as to back this theory up with numbers on their blog, displaying the difference in spending, for example, when we have had divided and unified government. More oversight and less wars are also cited as products of divided government.

I have no doubt that the numbers are correct, but I don't think they reflect today's situation.

The only way divided government works is if the different parties in control are actually different. In recent years, the dominating parties - Republicans and Democrats - have become opposite sides of the same coin. They are now both big government parties, just in different ways. As the old saying goes, you can either have the welfare state or the warfare state, when it comes to choosing your typical Dem or Repub.

We’ve certainly seen some positive outcomes from the November 2006 divided government, such as a President locating his veto pen for the first time in 7 years, as well as congressional oversight that has been long since missing.

Unfortunately, a lot of things divided government is supposed to fix have failed to be fixed. For example, the Democrats are now expected to allow Senate Republicans to attach tens of billions of dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a $500 billion-plus government wide spending bill. There's no mention of Bush not signing such a bill, so long as a timeline is not included.

That would be in exchange for Republican support on a huge domestic spending measure, and we’ve already seen a huge domestic spending measure take place once already, one that included subsidies to nearly every kind of industry that federal government has no business supporting, as well as a forced minimum wage increase that federal government has no business forcing on companies.

We have seen no end to the wars that divided government was elected to curtail, and instead have seen a troop increase with no timeline of accountability for the Iraq government.

We seen no change in the destruction of the 4th Amendment and our civil rights - no change in the Patriot Act - only measures that allow the federal government to spy on us more than what it was doing already.

Considering all that, I find it hard to accept that divided government is working this time around. I blame the recent resemblance in the Dems and Repubs.

Once again, our best choice is to simply vote for those who will bring the change we need, whether they be 3rd party candidates, independents, or those within the Repubs or Dems who are trying to change the parties from within (Ron Paul, for example).

Nevertheless, divided government is a concept worth considering.

For starters, the words "divided we stand, united we fall", is a play on words that eludes to the decentralizing concept that I often talk about - keeping federal government limited and giving more power to 50 state governments which could provide 50 different variations and possibilities that accommodate everyone, increasing everyone's freedom.

As well, It's a Free Country, and whenever our freedom is threatened by one party growing out of control and gorging itself on power, voters must have a means to put such growth in check. If they cannot do it by voting in a candidate or party that can solve the problem, then objectively voting for divided government can certainly be the next-to-last means of keeping freedom intact...the 2nd Amendment being the last means.

To Scrooge or Not to Scrooge

In the spirit of the holidays, I watched A Christmas Carol last night, which is always one of my favorite Christmas movies.

Much has been said about the lesson that is taught in this movie, especially from a political context. Most folks argue that the lesson is based on liberal ideology, that Ebenezer Scrooge is portrayed as a villain because he is wealthy and does not want to share a single dime of his wealth with anyone, especially the poor, even at Christmastime.

The lesson to be taught, in this case, is that owning vast amounts of wealth is wrong unless you are willing to share it with those who do not have wealth.

Naturally, conservatives argue that this is a poor lesson to be taught. They, along with many libertarians, see Ebenezer Scrooge as a hero, instead of a villain, putting forth the effort to be as successful as he can be and appreciating the wealth he has obtained due to the hard work he has achieved.

They see Bob Cratchit (Scrooge's poorly paid employee) as the villain, as opposed to being the hero in the liberal point-of-view, due to Cratchit's unwillingness to improve himself and get a better job in order to better support his family, especially since he has a crippled son (Tiny Tim).

The lesson here, instead, is that there is nothing wrong with owning wealth, particularly if you worked hard to achieve it, and if you don't want to give any of it away to people who would rather get a hand-out instead of achieve their own success, then there is nothing wrong with that.

I would like to offer my own, alternative lesson that can and possibly should be applied to this story. It's a lesson about freedom.

I don't think there is anything wrong with either scenario that I have explained above. If someone who is wealthy and well-to-do wants to share their wealth with others who have not worked as hard or improved themselves as much or who are less fortunate, there is nothing wrong with that. It's Scrooge's wealth; he should be able to do what he wants with it. That's freedom.

On the other hand, if someone does not want to share the wealth they have worked hard to obtain or were fortunate enough to receive with people who do not have wealth, then there is nothing wrong with that either. Once again, it's Scrooge's wealth, he should be able to do what he wants with it. That's freedom.

Expecting people to do one thing or the other with their wealth shows a lack of consideration for freedom. Even worse, once we start legislating what someone should do with their wealth, that's tyranny. The only exception to that tyranny is if such legislation is kept at the state level, where the people have options to choose from.

In the end, the argument over whether or not someone should share their wealth is pointless and futile because It's a Free Country. In a free country, people should be able to hoard their wealth or share their wealth as they please.

The Internet's Power of Freedom

We all know that the Internet has changed the world. What I find most interesting is how it will continue to change the world and in what way.

Hands down, one if the largest, most prominent allies of freedom, if not THE largest, most prominent, is the Internet. With the Internet, we have been able to achieve stretches of freedom that we have never been able to achieve before in the past, and we will continue to achieve even more.

I needn't bore you with examples of how freedom has been enhanced in the past thanks to the Internet. Unless you've been living under a rock, you are probably already aware that the voice of the people has been expanded in every direction, the probability of people sustaining themselves with low overhead costs and regulation (many making fortunes in the 90's) has been increased, and the enormity of information that has exploded and made available with the push of a button has empowered people to no ends.

Instead, I'll talk about what we could possibly expect to come. I think we can expect many more changes, but one in particular fascinates me: The power of the people to potentially control the outcome of world events.

We are already seeing a near revolution taking place in America by people who want change and searching for that change in a new president. The Ron Paul Phenomenon, as it's called, is providing a perfect example of how the Internet is enabling the people to mobilize on their own, for the cause that they believe in, destroying all preconceived notions dictated to us by status-quo media and those who control the outcome of our elections. Just Google Ron Paul and you will see what I am talking about.

As if that's not a large enough example, I think there is another case-in-point that has even greater ramifications:

For example, relations with America and Iran are on edge. Saber rattling is common and the potential for war is very high. Yet, how many of the people in either country actually want such a war? For that matter, stop and think about how many of the people in any country that has been in any war that has occurred on Earth really wanted such a war?

As is the case throughout all of human history and as long as the concept of government has existed, it's been the governments of humankind who have started wars, not the people.

Yet, the people have never had a choice but to along with it. They have never had the power to stop it. They have never had the ability to really know the true justification of the war. They have had no ability to change the course. They seldom had any ability to question it. This has been the way for all of history and it is only recently beginning to change.

The Internet can accelerate that change immensely.

As a suggestion, think about the Internet and what it can do. Think about the instant communication that can occur anywhere in the world without government regulation (although corporate conglomerates are trying their damnedest to regulate it, with the help of government).

I want to call your attention to the small, red dot in the country of Iran that exists on Visitor Locations meter of this blog (right side, scroll down a bit). Someone from Iran visited this site.

Granted, that visitor could have been a government official. But, what if it was just a regular "Joe", just like me? And what could stop us regular Joes from America and Iran from talking to one another, communicating, and connecting over the Internet?

And when that happens, who is to say that we will not discover that neither one of us wants our countries to go to war with the other, much unlike our respective governments do. And when that happens, who is to say that we will not discover that the majority of the people in both of countries do not want such war, with all of us talking to one another?

Our own governments won't even talk to one another! But Iranian "Joe" and I can. And so can every other Iranian Joe and American Joe (and Janes). Once the people begin to communicate with one another, side-stepping government oversight, governments will lose their ability to lead the people into wars and other world situations where the majority of regular people might not want to be. That's freedom.

One might say that we have always been able to communicate with other people in other countries. After all, we've always been able to mail letters. Uh-huh...and who controls that system? Answer: The government. How reliable is that system? What is the speed of service for that system?

What about big media news networks doing reports overseas? Well, how many of those news networks are putting you into personal contact with the people of another country? Doing a story is not the same thing. To make the situation worse, all major media (in America) is owned by only 4-5 corporations, who control what is said and what is done.

The Internet is instantaneous. It's reliable. It's not controlled by governments. Only it's connection is controlled by corporations, not the content (unless we allow that to happen). And the Internet provides peer-to-peer connection.

This is a power that the people have never known, until recent decades. Once we begin to use it to the degree I have mentioned (and we will), governments will no longer begin to lead us into one war after another. If a majority of the people in either country whose governments are leading to war disagree with going to war, how will governments be able to make it happen? After all, governments are a very small minority of people. The People are a huge, massive majority.

The Internet still has a long ways to go and I recommend to any freedom lovers out there that you cherish it's existence. It is slowly but surely providing a level of freedom to the world such has never been known before.

And there are all kinds of powers-that-be who will try to control it, limit it, and regulate it, because without such regulation, the people will have a power of freedom that cannot be controlled.

I hope we begin using that power more. I'll set the example and reach out to the Iranian who visited this site. Whoever you are from Iran that visited this site, please send me an email. I want to talk. We need to talk. Unless you are a government official. Then we have nothing to talk about.

Have a great weekend everybody and remember that It's a Free Country.

One of the President's Jobs

There's been much talk among our presidential candidates on whether or not they would communicate with foreign leaders deemed to be against U.S. interests.

Most of this discussion started in the aftermath of the Democratic YouTube debate and has been going on since. During that debate, Obama got hammered for his response to a question asked to him about whether or not he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea.

Obama's response: "I would." He went on to say, "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous".

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of people who think otherwise, including Hillary who immediately pounced by responding, "I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year."

As Charles Krauthammer and everyone else who slammed Obama's response put it, Hillary began "ticking off the reasons any graduate student would tick off: You don't want to be used for their propaganda. You need to know their intentions. Such a meeting can make the situation worse."

This sort of viewpoint has carried on to the Republican candidates as well, since most of them have declared that they, too, would not engage in conversation with such leaders (Giuliani would rather bomb them, in fact). Ron Paul was recently booed at the Republican debate in Iowa for stating he would communicate and interact with Fidel Castro of Cuba.

Here is my take on the things that Mr. Krauthammer said are being taught to our graduate students:

1. Propaganda - Leaders refusing to meet with leaders for reasons of propaganda is the beginning of propaganda itself.

2. Knowing their Intentions - How do you really know their intentions if you don't talk to them? How do they really know yours?

3. Making the Situation Worse - By this logic, I should never cross the street because I could always be hit by a car. Things are going to go wrong, sometimes. But not attempting to do anything will guarantee that they go wrong every time.

Perhaps the interaction that Ron Paul and others plan to use - talking to our enemies - is not the way we usually do things, but it should stand to reason that the way we have been doing things isn't working.

It should stand to reason that perhaps much of the mess that we are in today throughout the world is due to "the way we have always done things" - the notion that "an American president should not share the honor of his office with malevolent clowns like Hugo Chavez", as Mr. Krauthammer put it in his article.

It's this sort of elitism that has steered us in the wrong direction throughout the world. An attitude such as the one I just described is nothing more than pure ego, a false sense of identity, fear, and poison for interaction among nations in the world and society in general.

Don't get me wrong, I think Chavez and the others are poor examples of leaders. But, this does not mean we should not communicate with him or others like him.

The Cold War was won by this method without a wartime shot fired. Direct talks occurred between Regan and Gorbachev. One might say that the Soviet Union was "worth" the direct talk because they were a superpower. So, that makes other countries like Venezuela and Iran not worth talking to, directly, because they are not a superpower and because they have leaders who have caused trouble for us? Incorrect.

The leaders of those countries are still leaders, nonetheless. They might be poor examples of leaders, but they are still that country's leader. If we think the leaders of North Korea and Cuba, for example, are such bad leaders, then that's all the more reason to talk to them, to show them the way, to show them how good leadership is conducted, and to show the world how good leadership is conducted. That's good leadership.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution allows for a President "to make Treaties". One cannot do that if one does not communicate with other leaders.

How can anyone be the President of a free country - a country that allows dissent and disagreement - yet not be willing to talk to foreign leaders who disagree and dissent? It's a Free Country, and what's good for us should be good for others as well.

We need a President that leads by such an example - the example of freedom.

Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays?

I almost hesitate writing a post about this subject because I have yet to hear much of anything on this standard, yearly argument we have in America.

It’s been quiet lately…nothing from the talking heads on Fox News or CNN, nothing in the papers, very little on the Net, and I’ve yet to hear any personal conversations about it. Perhaps we are finally starting to wise up.

In fear of igniting this controversial issue, I will make this post as an act of laying flowers on the grave of a (hopefully) dead subject, or this post will (hopefully) be that which puts the subject in its grave, flowers be damned.

What we need to remember is what this blog is all about – It’s a Free Country. That means, when it comes to the holidays, anyone should be able to say anything they want, with one, minor exception.

Do you celebrate Christmas? Then why not say “Merry Christmas”? Do you celebrate Hanukkah? Then why not say “Happy Hanukkah”? Do you celebrate Kwanzaa? Then why not say “Happy Kwanzaa”? The list goes on.

Here's an example of how a potential greeting could occur: If you celebrate Hanukkah and someone you meet celebrates Christmas, they should be able to say “Merry Christmas” to you, because they celebrate Christmas. Your reply, in return, could then be “Happy Hanukkah”, because you celebrate Hanukkah.

In a free country, people should be able to give the greeting that corresponds to what they celebrate, no matter what anyone else celebrates. It’s just that simple.

Even if you celebrate Christmas, you don’t have to say Merry Christmas. If you want to say "Happy Holidays" or anything else, so be it. In a free country, it shouldn’t matter what seasonal greeting you want to say and it shouldn’t matter what seasonal greeting you get in return, if any. Not only is that the mark of a free country, that’s also the mark of simple maturity and rationalism.

I mentioned there being an exception. The only exception to being able to say whatever you want to say for the holidays is if you work for an employer who wants you, as the employee (if you are an employee), to say a particular greeting to customers.

The thing to remember here is that the employer is either the owner of the business or the person who runs it. It’s their business, not yours (the employee). If you don’t like having to say what the employer wants you to say in their business, in a free country, you are free to leave that job and find another.

On a personal note, I don’t know why any business would not want their employees to say something neutral like “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings”. Businesses are in the business of making profit and people of all persuasions are potential customers. Relating to each of those customers should be in the interest of a business. But, that’s just my opinion.

All that being said, I hope you enjoy whatever holiday you celebrate, no matter what country you are in.

Project Vote Smart

Action speaks louder than words. Don't listen to what candidates and your elected officials say. Look at what they do.

At Project Vote Smart, you can do exactly that. Every candidate and elected official is listed on this site and you can look each of them up and see a library of information on each of them organized in five categories: biographical information, issue positions, voting records, campaign finances, and interest group ratings.

This site is a wealth of information and does what it was intended to do...educate the public. Often, we make voting choices based on the 30-second soundbites, rhetoric, and straight-up lies that are projected to us on a daily basis. At Project Vote Smart, we can now make choices based on solid information, straight-forward information, and truth.

The founder of Project Vote Smart, Richard Kimball, had some very important words to say in the introduction of Project Vote Smart's 2006 Voters Self-Defense Manual . I think he hit the nail on the head:

"Recently reading about Alexander Tytler, a Scottish historian at the time of the American Revolution, put our challenge in fresh perspective for me. He made the most persuasive arguments against Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Washington I have ever heard.

He said we were doomed to failure, for if you began with bondage that might lead to the courage of revolution, and if revolution were successful that would lead to liberty, and liberty to great abundance. But eventually abundance would lead to greed and selfishness, which would bring about complacency and apathy. This would inevitably lead us back to dependence and a return to bondage.

He felt that in a free self-governing society the masses would eventually learn that they could vote themselves gifts from the [federal] public treasury and that would lead to their end. That was, of course, the general position of the world in 1776, and the nation’s founders worried about it.

They all worried...that if they did this weird thing and cast out power to the masses, in the words of Washington, it “would recoil upon us.” They feared that “factions” (their term for political parties and special interests) would organize and strip the people of the one crucial component to self govern successfully: accurate, abundant, relevant information.

That is precisely what the Project is struggling to prevent. The modern candidate has simply found it more economical to move people’s prejudices and fears. In a 30 second commercial you can do that, but you cannot discuss a concern facing society and the options for dealing with it in 30 seconds, so there is no longer any effort by the political parties to do so. As one leader of my own party once argued with me, “It is not our job to educate, Richard. It is our job to win.”

I don't think it's possible for me to disagree any more than I already do with that last statement from the unknown politician and apparently Richard Kimball doesn't agree either.

Don't make your choice based on what you see in the media; the media is crap. It's owned by those with an agenda and you will never get the total truth. Don't even trust blogs; they are full of opinions too. Trust facts. Facts are displayed in your elected official or candidate's voting record. Facts are displayed in the list of campaign contributions your elected official or candidate receives.

Granted, you won't have this luxury with candidates who have never held office before but you do have this luxury with the majority of those whom we are to vote for before the primaries. Use this luxury. It's there for you, to empower you, to empower us as a nation.

Incidentally, when the presidential campaigns started some time ago, I used Project Vote Smart on some of the candidates whom I had a particular view about. After seeing their voting record, my views were affected, and rightfully so.

I encourage each of you to test your own favorites. It's a Free Country, and in a free country, it only makes sense to use this opportunity.

The Death of Politics

It's almost ironic, perhaps hypocritical, that I write this blog about politics. Why? Because I think politics need not exist in our world.

Think about Leonardo di Vinci, arguably the most ingenious man who ever lived - the original Renaissance Man who was a master in the realms of anatomy, astronomy, botany, geology, flight, geography, inventing, art, engineering, physics, hydrostatics, optics, mathematics, mechanics, a bit of philosophy, and much more.

Yet, he didn't touch politics, despite politics being very prevalent in his time. Search as you may, you will be very hard pressed to find any accomplishments, much less activity, of Leonardo da Vinci in any discipline related to politics. Why do you think that is? Could it be because it takes a genius intellect to discover that politics is unnecessary in our world?

Personally, I think it only takes common sense. It is well known that da Vinci lived as a "free soul" and I think that sense of freedom he lived in throughout his life gives us the answer to how and why politics is unnecessary.

Freedom could be the death of politics as we know it.

The only reason why we have politics is because we each try to pull and tug the other person in the direction we want them to go, instead of only worrying about what direction we want to go. We worry more about what others are doing instead of worrying more about what we ourselves are doing.

We try to acquire the kind of freedom that we want at the expense of the kind of freedom that others want, by making our version the only way. And we do this through politics. We argue and fight and try to "best" one another, constantly putting more and more legislation in place, only to limit ourselves more and more, in the hopes that our version of freedom will triumph and destroy our adversary's version. We have people that make this happen for us and we call them politicians.

Such politicians inevitably feed off our selfish and hardline desires and become fat with greed and power themselves, caring less about what's good for The People and more about what's good for them or those who line their pockets with money, simply making our situation worse.

Politicians begin campaigns designed to tear We the People apart and divide us, pitting us all against one another - us against them - we're right and they're wrong - my way or no way - you belong to this camp and not that camp. We fight for what is "right" and seldom ever get anything other than more fighting.

The truth is that everyone is right, until they begin forcing others to conform to their way.

Freedom enables us to move past all of that. In other words, freedom kills politics.

In a free world, anyone can live in a society of their choosing, whether they prefer big government intervention in their lives, or whether they prefer government to stay out of their lives, or some combination in-between, with neither being forced to accept the other (easily done at the state level).

In a free world, people utilize a voting system that they prefer, whether they prefer to vote for representatives, or vote democratically (directly), or not vote at all (once again, easily done at the state level).

Certain, basic rights that enable and stabilize freedom, such as those presented in the Bill of Rights, are enshrined and branded into the law of the land, guaranteed to everyone, denied to no one, and never neglected.

And despite the different levels or forms of government that people choose to experience, they are well protected from harm and a uniform system of justice and commerce are available for everyone to utilize.

People are free to live their lives as they choose, so long as no force or coercion is used (unless those receiving the force and coercion choose to receive it).

The leaders that are elected, if leaders are elected at all, are nothing more than figureheads. They do nothing more than tend this constant form of freedom, acting only as a giant maintenance crew keeping the chain oiled and the wheels spinning. The people need not really even care who is running for office because whomever it is simply does the same thing: Ensuring we can live our lives the way we intend.

We could do away with politics right now, if we really wanted to. That's what can happen when...

It's a Free Country!

...And that can only happen when we realize that each of our lives are the only thing that each of us control.

Questioning Religion of our Politicians

Lately, I've noticed some religion bashing (as I call it) of and by some of our 2008 presidential candidates.

From the "questioning" done by Hillary Clinton's team of Barrack Obama's religious background, to this speech given by Mitt Romney in response to all of the questioning and bashing of his religion from various portions of the electorate, there has been a lot of "questioning" of candidates' religion.

I need only remind everyone - candidates and the people alike - of two things:

Article VI and Amendment I of the Constitution.

Officially, in a free country, religion should not be an issue. It shouldn't matter whether a President is Mormon, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Pagan, or Muslim. The same is true of The People. In fact, it has been branded into law (see above) that such considerations don't matter.

Unofficially, it's a different story. People should have the freedom to personally question any religion they want. That freedom does exist in America. That's freedom. It might be rude. It might be intolerant. But that's freedom...to be able to question whatever you want.

So long as such questioning isn't done officially by the government, or so long as such preferences for certain religions are not promoted by federal government or into federal legislation, there is no problem. The latter is one issue I have with Mitt Romney, when he says that "religion should be conducted in the public square".

Privately, yes, a public official should be able to practice whatever religion he or she wants. But, a religion promoted by the government in a free country is wrong. In a country where multiple religions exist, the federal government has no damn business promoting any one, single religion, much less putting the money (tax money) from all of its citizens (who represent all reglions or none) toward any one religion. Let's not forget that such action distorts the First Amendment. With comments like this, Romney shows he doesn't deserve to be the leader of a free country.

I also can't condone personal questioning by presidential candidates, as I can from The People, as Hillary did to Obama. To me, someone who is trying to become the leader of a free country should not be questioning anyone's faith, at least not publicly.

Personally, I don't question anyone's faith. But that's just me. I have to go along with what Congressman Ron Paul once stated when he responded to the questioning of Romney's religion:

"We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for American values and traditions before they are washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. I have never been one who is particularly comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena, and I find the pandering that typically occurs in the election season to be distasteful.

Our nation was founded to be a place where religion is freely practiced and differences are tolerated and respected. I come to my faith through Jesus Christ and have accepted him as my personal savior. At the same time, I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore individual rights and religious freedom for all Americans.

The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle, that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends."

Now that sounds like a man who knows:

It's a Free Country!

The YouTube Debates

I love them.

Nothing could be better than to hear the thoughts, opinions, and concerns of The People themselves during debates with the future leader of our free country.

The YouTube debates are beginning to change the landscape of how the Q & A sessions carefully masterminded by big media are done and not a moment too soon. In a free country, we should be hearing more from The People themselves.

Typical questions from pundits by big media during debates are exactly that...typical. They are often sterilized, expected, and seldom get to the heart of what concerns people (a.k.a. - the folks whom our government is supposed to be working for).

Hearing from The People themselves gets us down into the trenches, onto the deck plates, and into reality. More importantly, it gets the candidates there.

I applaud this effort and I hope to see it develop. Naturally, however, its development will not be without resistance.

There are many people who prefer the standard, institutionalized method of Q & A for the debates that we are used to putting up with. There are several reasons why, but one that erks me the most - the one I hear the most - is that such a format is "beneath the dignity of the man or woman who would lead the free world".

When the Democratic YouTube debates were complete, I heard this sort of dribble from all sources...talking heads on big media, journalists, bloggers, and everyday people I met on the street or in the workplace (although I also heard just as much support for the format).

Worst of all, I even heard it from some of the GOP presidential hopefuls (Giuliani was the biggest protester) who even hinted at refusing to participate in such a debate, simply because there were snowmen and children asking questions.

The latest complaint I've heard is from an article I recently read here, written by famed columnist Kathleen Parker whose writing is syndicated to multiple papers around the country.

Of particular concern to me were comments made by Ms. Parker in her article that included such things as a comparison of the YouTube debates to athletes who should avoid playing with "lesser mortals" for fear that they will "bring down your game."

She also classified the debate as "sophomoric" and said the debate was "an insult to voters' intelligence". And, of course, she threw out "the YouTube debates were beneath the dignity of the man or woman who would lead the free world".

I decided to respond to Ms. Parker, and I sent her a short email. This is what it said:

Ms. Parker,

I read your article about how you thought "the YouTube debate was beneath the dignity of the man or woman who would lead the free world".

The way I see it, any candidate who resents having to respond to the free expression of the very people that he or she will be leading in a free country has no business leading a free country, much less a free world.

DK

Her email address is kparker@kparker.com . I encourage anyone to write and explain to her how responding to the free expressions of The People, no matter how creative those expressions are, should be something that a future/current leader of the same free people should take great pleasure in doing, because:

It's a Free Country! (that he or she will be leading)

How is it a Free Country?

What is it about the phrase, "It's a Free Country" that makes the phrase true? How is it that we are a free country? What is it that makes us free?

Does it have to do with the strong will and drive of so many in America who try to keep government limited, small, and out of our lives? Is it the constant effort by so many to increase the size of government in order to intervene and take care of us more? Does the work of so many who fight to keep the government on track with the Constitution have anything to do with it? What about those pushing a socialist agenda? Or a green agenda?

The answer to all of those questions is the exact same:

All of the above, and more.

T.S. Eliot once put it the way I think best describes what makes the United States a free country when he said, "The intense happiness of our union is derived in a high degree from the perfect freedom with which we each follow and declare our own impressions."

What does that mean? It means that everyone looks at the world his or her own way. Everyone has their own impressions. Everyone has their own perceptions. Everyone has their own desires, wants, and needs.

Attempting to find a one-size-fits-all for all of those impressions, perceptions, and desires is not only illogical, it's also unrealistic and foolish. Such an attempt is the reason for nearly all human conflict in the world and it provides an example of force and coercion - a lack of freedom.

But how, might you ask, can multiple preferences be utilized at the same time? There are a few, good solutions out there but, by far, one of the best is decentralization. This is what we have done (or did, a long time ago) in the United States. Instead of an all-encompassing, centralized government that controls everything, we have a decentralized government where the federal government is very limited over multiple states, each with their own governments.

So long as the federal government remains limited to the basics (national defense, a justice system, regulation of commerce and foreign trade, ensuring civil rights), every one of those state governments can act as a different experiment or variation of government.

At present day, we have 50 states. That's 50 different possibilities we could have for types of government. And that doesn't even include all of the local governments within those 50 states. Add in the local governments and we are talking about hundreds upon hundreds of possibilities and choices!

Decentralized down to the state level, we can/should have any form of government that we want, all under the same roof of a federal government that provides defense for them all (while still allowing for their own defense), unifies trade and commerce, protects all individual civil rights, and all through the insurance of a written Constitution.

That's freedom.

Currently, we are doing this in America (though it's getting more difficult as time goes on). For example, there is a very obvious difference in states like Michigan and New Hampshire in regards to the kinds of laws, regulations, and taxes that exist between the two states. Michigan is very liberal, whereas New Hampshire is very libertarian.

What about Massachusetts as opposed to Florida? What about Alaska as opposed to Alabama? What about Washington D.C. as opposed to Las Vegas? How much of a difference in regulation and laws are there among those governments? Answer: A huge difference.

The key, however, is a limited federal government. With limited federal government, not only can limited government enthusiasts have their way at the state and local level, but big government enthusiast can/should have their way at the state and local level as well. If the federal government expands, however, only those who enjoy big government can prosper at the state and local level.

For freedom to flourish, decentralization needs to occur, allowing multiple state governments to exist under a limited federal government, each with their own capacity to provide any level or type of government that the people want.

That's freedom, and that's how It's a Free Country!

Nonintervention vs Isolationism

In honor of the recent Republican YouTube debate, where Senator McCain took the opportunity to increase the fictionalization of non-intervention being the same thing as isolationism, this post is dedicated to once-and-for-all explain that there is a difference.

I do this so that you, as a voter, can see through the rhetoric and smear being spewed by candidates who either don't know the meaning of the words they use (not a good sign for someone running for President) or are using such verbiage in a disingenuous manner (yet again, not a good sign for someone running for President). Those of you who are not voters, whether an American who does not vote or a non-American, this attempt at clarity is for you too, since both words cater to actions taken or not taken in YOUR countries.

To add some weight to my explanations, I have enlisted the help of Princeton University, as well as a former President of the United States of America. After all, we can't just simply take that pesky Ron Paul fella's word for it, right?

Allow me to introduce my first guest, Antony Lewis, creator of WordWeb, a dictionary-thesaurus-word database based on a WordNet project at Princeton University:

Nonintervention - n. A foreign policy of staying out of other countries' disputes.

Isolationism - n. A policy of nonparticipation in international economic and political relations.

Do you notice the difference? Let's hear what Ron Paul has to say about that difference, in his book A Foreign Policy of Freedom (located on my National/World links list):

"Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations."

That sounds suspiciously like the definition presented by WordWeb! Coincidence? I think not. Speaking of the Founders as Paul has, let me introduce my next guest, former President George Washington, and let's hear what he has to say about Paul's interpretation of what the Founders advocated:

"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; "-- George Washington (Farewell Address, 1796)

Apparently, there are an awful lot of people, particularly 2008 Presidential candidates, who do not understand what they are talking about when they say nonintervention is the same thing as isolationism, with the exception of Rep./Dr. Ron Paul. On the GOP side, particularly, it looks like John McCain needs to be given a reading assignment just like Rudy Giuliani needed one.

Isolationism we don't need, for obvious reasons. Trading with other nations helps all who are involved. Talking to other nations and understanding their culture, while sharing yours, helps all who are involved. Visiting and spending time in other nations increases understanding, friendship, and even economic relations (tourist money) for all involved. Isolationism prevents all of that from happening. No one is advocating that.

Nonintervention we DO need. We can't be a free country if we conduct our foreign policy in a manner that is not consistent with being a free country. Examples of not being consistent with being a free country include nation building and intervening in foreign affairs that have no direct effect on us. Using force to tell others how to live is not the mark of a free country and that is the opposite of nonintervention. That's not freedom. That's tyranny. I want to be able to say:

It's a Free Country!

The Bank's Monopoly Diminishes

The days where banks hold a monopoly on The People's ability to borrow money are now gone. The People are taking it upon themselves to step into the realm of lending and borrowing money.

Naturally, technology is helping to see this endeavor gain steam, through a website called Prosper.com . It's breaking the bank's power that it has over us, which is great news! If there's one thing that should not exist in a free country, it's having an institution yield the kind of leverage and control over The People that the bank does today.

The way this new, people-powered system works is like this: Borrowers log onto the network and post how much money they are looking for, the purpose of the loan, and at what interest rate they are looking for.

The reasons range anywhere from money to get married, to money needed in order to start a new business, and everything in-between. Posts are usually accompanied by photographs and personal narratives that explain the reason for the loan. A grade is assigned to each borrower based on the person's credit score so that investors know their level of risk.

Lenders (investors) then log on and bid on how much they can lend and at what interest rate. It's that simple.

Many of the lenders are indicating that the investments they have made are returning more profits than other forms of investment. Only 10% of all investments are failing to be returned. Considering how often we could see a lack of payback from borrowers, I think 10% is pretty freakin' good!

I see this as a huge opportunity for The People. It's a win-win situation all around (except for banks, ha-ha!):

1. We increase our freedom by increasing choices, by breaking the control and overbearing monopoly that the bank has had for so long. The People regain more control over their affairs.

2. We increase our ability to create wealth, with a new and different opportunity to invest, which also creates wealth for those who borrow. Borrowers can find better rates than banks traditionally offer and investors can get better returns than from a savings account at a bank.

3. We increase our level of humanitarianism. According to Prosper, "The opportunities for social connection appeal to users, said Prosper co-founder and CEO Chris Larsen...."When you’re dealing with people, it’s 'I want to do well but I also want to feel good about how I'm doing well,'" said Larsen.

Banks are obviously not as humanitarian and can be cold, less forgiving, and rarely appeal to human need. Investors who fill that need step up the level of peer-to-peer connection in society. Investing directly in a person, as opposed to a large, corporate conglomerate, feels more human.

4. I can see the potential for this to go international, whether by Prosper themselves or by other companies similar to Prosper starting up in other countries.

It's those reasons, above, that display an exciting example of how:

It's a Free Country!

$20,000 Bonus

The Army is offering a tremendous sign-on bonus these days. And people are snatching it up, lured in by big money instantly given to them if they are willing to become cannon fodder.
I don't think such a thing should be considered acceptable.

First and foremost, the need for such a bonus (poor recruitment) should tell you something is wrong. It should tell you that perhaps The People aren’t in agreement with the wars that we are in. If they were in agreement, recruitment would be through the roof.

So, instead of recognizing what people are saying (by not joining), the federal government has decided to entice people with more (of our) money.

Now before you think I’m anti-military, I’ll set the record straight and say that I support a strong military. A strong defense is how all of our united states are protected from harm. If the federal government is not protecting our states from harm, what’s the point of uniting in the first place?

What I don’t support is the massive waste of our federal tax dollars (which are taken against many people's will in the first place) to entice suckers into an unpopular war.

I’ve received mixed feedback from my stance and I often hear responses such as, “Military members need that money because they don’t receive enough compensation for what they do.” I’ve also heard, “For all that they’ve done, they deserve that bonus.” In both cases, I raise the bullshit flag.

1. This is a sign-on bonus. It’s not given to seasoned vets, “for all that they’ve done”. It’s given to brand-new recruits. It’s nothing more than bribery into an unpopular war.

2. Military members are VERY well compensated in America. The pay scale is slightly lower than civilian counter-parts, but most people fail to recognize that the military pay scale does not include 100% health care (including spouse and children), 100% dental care, nearly 100% education expenses paid for, free housing, guaranteed retirement after only 20 years, bonuses in the thousands every 4-6 years, yearly pay raises just for being alive, paid down payments on new homes, and reduced prices at restaurants, movies, parks, amusement parks, vacation homes, and countless other places. That’s not counting tax-free products and services at exchanges and commissaries around the world.

Factor in the cost of awesome benefits such as those and the pay-scale for military members is much HIGHER than the average civilian employee.

Any time you hear of a military member on food stamps, it’s because that member is not responsible, plain and simple. The military adequately takes care of it’s people and rightfully so.

My point? Members don’t need that $20,000 because they are living so poorly. They are not living poorly at all.

I don’t support a sign-on bonus for the military of any amount, much less one set at $20,000. We're talking about federal money that should not be used so frivolously. It's not like state money, which any state has a right to waste according to what its people want:

It’s a Free County!

Happy Thanksgiving

I'm thankful for living in a place where I can say, It's a Free County!

Younger Generation's Interest in Ron Paul

It seems that the doctor known as Ron Paul who is running for President has quite the following from an otherwise apathetic bloc of voters, folks in the 18-22 range. Paul is stirring interest in voters of all ages, but it's rare to see such interest brought about from voters as young as 18-22.

College campuses are abuzz with Paul supporters. Even many high schoolers are chanting his name. It should be a dream come true for adults who are always complaining that kids don't step into the voting booth enough. Alas, the only thing most of us adults can talk about, instead, is why the young are so enchanted with Paul.

Well, in an effort to start getting us to concentrate on what's really important here - the fact that young voters are becoming involved, which is what we are always bitching at them to do - let me propose what I think is a sound reason for why young voters are so interested in Paul, in order for us to start focusing on the fact that they are interested in participating in the first place.

Personally, I think the answer is simple.

Young people, on average, have been attending 10 years of school ranging from middle school to college, during which time they have been taught to value the Constitution of the United States.
They are taught that the Founding Fathers were smart men who knew what was best for our country and that what they knew was that states with their own governments and ways of doing things can be united as a means to ensure protection, freedom, and justice, but only if united under a federal government that was very limited in power.

They are taught that America is a collection of states that are united under such a federal government, one that is limited in power by the Constitution, intended to make official our rights and freedoms. This information is hammered into them year after year.

Then, these kids see our federal government do the exact opposite of what they've been taught. They see the feds completely disregard the Constitution.

They see our Congress vote to give the President authority to wage a war in Iraq and Afghanistan without a Declaration of War and everything that comes with it from Congress (violation of Article I Section 8).

They see our President conduct domestic spying on Americans without support of Oath or affirmation, thanks to the Patriot Act passed by Congress (violation of Amendment IV).

They see our Congress continue to allow a private entity (the Federal Reserve) control our money-system (violation of Article I Section 8).

They even see our President threaten to create new amendments that are in direct violation of amendments that already exist, such as an amendment to outlaw flag burning (violation of Amendment I) or an amendment to make gay marriage illegal (violation of Amendment IX).

Powers not delegated to the federal government are also failing to be reserved to state governments or the people, with such issues as affirmative action, education, and health care (violation of Amendment X), among many others.

Those are only a few examples. The list of blatant disregard for the Constitution goes on.

Young people are more recently exposed to the Constitution than many adults are, since they are in the midst of learning about it in school and college, and they not only see our federal government tossing it out the window, they also see a group of 2008 Democratic and Republican presidential candidates (some of whom have been responsible for what I mentioned above) whose policies do not reflect the Constitution, with the exception of Rep./Dr. Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who stands out as one who bases all of his decisions on the Constitution and his over-a-decade-long voting record proves it to anyone who wants to see for themselves. Ron Paul respects states rights and the freedom that comes with 50 different possibilities of levels and types of government, all living under the same roof of protection and justice.

When the younger generation sees Ron Paul cut short by the mainstream media and ridiculed by a large portion of older voters as being "nuts", "loony", or "wacko", they wonder when it became "nuts", "loony", or "wacko" to respect the Constitution and limited federal government, especially after they have been taught to do exactly that.

We expect our kids to learn the Constitution, to value limited federal government, and to understand how multiple states can provide us with multiple possibilities, and then we wonder why so many of them strongly support Ron Paul, the only candidate who actually pays attention to any of those things.

Those of us who are older would do well to remember what we expect our children to learn and to start practicing what we preach.

It's a Free Country!

The Phrase

We've all heard the phrase before, at least most of us who are over the age of 25. In fact, those of us over the age of 25 used to hear it all the time. I can personally vouch for that. What phrase am I talking about?

One that I used to hear frequently and randomly dropped as a remark or comeback in a conversation: "It's a Free Country!"

I remember people used to say it all the time. It was the standard response when someone would make a remark about something that they refused to tolerate, forgetting what country they lived in...the USA.

Ever notice that you seldom hear it now? I've noticed.

I don't remember the last time I actually heard someone use that term as a response. Frankly, I think that means something. I think there's a reason why we seldom hear people say it and I don't think it's because the phrase was just a fad since long faded out.

It's easy to assume that perhaps I am worrying about nothing. But if you live in the USA, take a good look around you. Take a good look at what the evening news shows us every night. Take a good look at what the newspapers say. Take a good look at what's on the Internet. Take a good look at our Constitution and the limited federal government it designs. And for those of you living outside of the USA, take a look yourself because the same fate is heading your way, if it's not already there.

We're losing freedoms left and right, by the Left and Right. If our federal government isn't squashing our economic freedoms one by one, their trying to obliterate our social freedoms. And they have no business doing either. Such things are to be left to the states. When left to the states, we have exactly (by today's standards) 50 possible variations of government to choose from. But that can't happen when the federal government controls too much, which is why the Constitution limits its power.

Back when the states could provide us with more freedom of choice, we could easily say "It's a free country", because if you didn't like the way things were in one state, you could always carry your ass to a different one and live the way you wanted to live there. But if the federal government controls too much, it doesn't matter what state you live in because too much power at the federal level makes all of the states nearly the same.

I never hear "It's a free country" anymore. I think that's because we are heading in the direction of no longer being a free country of united states. Sure, sometimes we take a few steps forward, but we always end up taking a few steps back.

I think it's time to reverse that trend. It's time to bring back that famous phrase which many of us know and love and use it vigorously! Perhaps part of the reason why we often lose site of the freedom we are supposed to have is simply because people stopped saying that phrase on a regular basis. Or, maybe we just became too apathetic and let our freedoms erode.

Either way, we need to start saying it again. This blog is a dedication to repeating the phrase, "It's a free country," whenever you can. The more people that say it and the more often they say it, the more it will happen, and the more we will be a free country. I think a lot of people simply need to be reminded of this simple fact that we are, in fact, supposed to be a free country.

This message is for those of you on the outside of America, as well, because that is how American freedom is supposed to spread through the world...not by the barrel of a gun, but by EXAMPLE (more to come on this later).

I plan to start using "It's a free country" in my everyday speech, talking to people on the street, on the phone, in email, and most certainly on this blog. And, I'll be pointing out facts and opinions that give meaning to that phrase. Some of you might not agree with the various points I will make regarding freedom, but that's okay:

It's a Free Country!