Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Friday, August 3, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Security & Self Governance
The senseless and horrific killings last week at a movie theater in Colorado reminded Americans that life is fragile and beautiful, and we should not take family, friends, and loved ones for granted. Our prayers go out to the injured victims and the families of those killed. As a nation we should use this terrible event to come together with the resolve to create a society that better values life.
We should also face the sober reality that government cannot protect us from all possible harm. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, no matter how routinely we monitor internet communications, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm. We as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
Furthermore, it is the role of civil society rather than government to build a culture of responsible, peaceful, productive individuals. Government cannot mandate morality or instill hope in troubled individuals. External controls on our behavior imposed by government through laws, police, and jails usually apply only after a terrible crime has occurred.
Internal self governance, by contrast, is a much more powerful regulator of human behavior than any law. This self-governance must be developed from birth, first by parents but later also through the positive influence of relatives and adult role models. Beyond childhood, character development can occur through religious, civic, and social institutions. Ultimately, self-governance cannot be developed without an underlying foundation of morality.
Government, however, is not a moral actor. The state should protect our rights, but it cannot develop our character. Whenever terrible crimes occur, many Americans understandably demand that government “do something” to prevent similar crimes in the future. But this reflexive impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty.
Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?
Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.
We should also face the sober reality that government cannot protect us from all possible harm. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, no matter how routinely we monitor internet communications, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm. We as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
Furthermore, it is the role of civil society rather than government to build a culture of responsible, peaceful, productive individuals. Government cannot mandate morality or instill hope in troubled individuals. External controls on our behavior imposed by government through laws, police, and jails usually apply only after a terrible crime has occurred.
Internal self governance, by contrast, is a much more powerful regulator of human behavior than any law. This self-governance must be developed from birth, first by parents but later also through the positive influence of relatives and adult role models. Beyond childhood, character development can occur through religious, civic, and social institutions. Ultimately, self-governance cannot be developed without an underlying foundation of morality.
Government, however, is not a moral actor. The state should protect our rights, but it cannot develop our character. Whenever terrible crimes occur, many Americans understandably demand that government “do something” to prevent similar crimes in the future. But this reflexive impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty.
Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?
Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
US Military Orders Active Soldiers Not To March Support Ron Paul
An email leaked by multiple active duty personnel shows that the military has issued a warning to troops encouraging them not to take part in the upcoming Veterans for Ron Paul 2012 march in Washington on Monday.
The email, posted to the group’s facebook event page and sent to organiser Adam Kokesh by several unconfirmed sources, lays out several directives on participation in political events by active and non active duty military.
Referring to the event as a “partisan political march”, the insinuation is clear – any active duty personnel, whether in uniform or not, and any reservists marching in uniform or otherwise deemed to be endorsing Ron Paul, could be reprimanded.
The email, posted to the group’s facebook event page and sent to organiser Adam Kokesh by several unconfirmed sources, lays out several directives on participation in political events by active and non active duty military.
Referring to the event as a “partisan political march”, the insinuation is clear – any active duty personnel, whether in uniform or not, and any reservists marching in uniform or otherwise deemed to be endorsing Ron Paul, could be reprimanded.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
Want Jobs Back In America?
high taxes or regulations means jobs OUT
low taxes low regulations means jobs IN
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Ron Paul Fights Against NDAA
Ron Paul took a day off from the campaign trail on Wednesday, not to pause from politics, but to urge his colleagues on Capitol Hill to overturn the provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that allows indefinite detention for Americans.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or the NDAA, was inked by President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, despite immense opposition from Americans who were concerned by vague language that could allow the commander-in-chief to use military forces to domestically police the United States. Under Section 1021 of the NDAA, any person, US citizen or not, can be held without trial by American armed forces if they are suspected of being engaged in hostilities against the country by al-Qaeda or associated forces.
Opponents of the act — and there are many — have questioned the language of the specific section, as it could be written to allow the president to enforce the law to imprison anyone suspected of any crime that could be considered by the right person in office to be an act of terror. President Obama said that he would not abide by this rule, but despite a signing statement that his administration won’t act in that manner, it does not mean that the promise will be upheld.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero called Obama’s approval of the legislation is "a blight on his legacy," insisting that “he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” and the Council on American-Islamic Relations called the bill an “ill-conceived and un-American legislation” that will “forever be seen as a stain on our nation’s history — one that will ultimately be viewed with embarrassment and shame.” Additionally, this week RT reported that noted journalist Chris Hedges has filed a lawsuit against the White House over the legislation, questioning the legality of the authorization and calling it “a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.”
On Wednesday this week, however, Ron Paul spoke from Capitol Hill, not South Carolina where the rest of his Republican Party rivals were campaigning before the state’s primary scheduled for this weekend. While in Washington to vote against raising the debt ceiling, Congressman Ron Paul also used the opportunity to go after Obama for signing the NDAA and offered a proposal that, if passed, would strike Section 1031 off the Act.
The move makes Paul not just the first frontrunner in the race for the GOP nomination to speak out against the act, but the first congressman to openly offer a solution to the legislation since it was authorized into law.
Paul began his address on Wednesday by noting that the National Defense Authorization Act was “quietly signed into law by the president on New Year’s Day,” sarcastically saluting it by adding, “and what a way to usher in a New Year.”
“Section 1021 provides for the possibility of the US military acting as a kind of police force on US soil, apprehending terror suspects – including Americans — and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely,” said Paul.
“No right to attorney, no right to trial, no day in court.”
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or the NDAA, was inked by President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, despite immense opposition from Americans who were concerned by vague language that could allow the commander-in-chief to use military forces to domestically police the United States. Under Section 1021 of the NDAA, any person, US citizen or not, can be held without trial by American armed forces if they are suspected of being engaged in hostilities against the country by al-Qaeda or associated forces.
Opponents of the act — and there are many — have questioned the language of the specific section, as it could be written to allow the president to enforce the law to imprison anyone suspected of any crime that could be considered by the right person in office to be an act of terror. President Obama said that he would not abide by this rule, but despite a signing statement that his administration won’t act in that manner, it does not mean that the promise will be upheld.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero called Obama’s approval of the legislation is "a blight on his legacy," insisting that “he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” and the Council on American-Islamic Relations called the bill an “ill-conceived and un-American legislation” that will “forever be seen as a stain on our nation’s history — one that will ultimately be viewed with embarrassment and shame.” Additionally, this week RT reported that noted journalist Chris Hedges has filed a lawsuit against the White House over the legislation, questioning the legality of the authorization and calling it “a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.”
On Wednesday this week, however, Ron Paul spoke from Capitol Hill, not South Carolina where the rest of his Republican Party rivals were campaigning before the state’s primary scheduled for this weekend. While in Washington to vote against raising the debt ceiling, Congressman Ron Paul also used the opportunity to go after Obama for signing the NDAA and offered a proposal that, if passed, would strike Section 1031 off the Act.
The move makes Paul not just the first frontrunner in the race for the GOP nomination to speak out against the act, but the first congressman to openly offer a solution to the legislation since it was authorized into law.
Paul began his address on Wednesday by noting that the National Defense Authorization Act was “quietly signed into law by the president on New Year’s Day,” sarcastically saluting it by adding, “and what a way to usher in a New Year.”
“Section 1021 provides for the possibility of the US military acting as a kind of police force on US soil, apprehending terror suspects – including Americans — and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely,” said Paul.
“No right to attorney, no right to trial, no day in court.”
Ron Paul Exposure Of NeoCons Agenda Before Congress July 10 2003
The original video was removed by Google/You Tube as copy right violation.
However, here is a less colorful but full version of the same speech given before Congress July 10, 2003 by Ron Paul
The full written text given before Congress is also linked from the above site:
However, here is a less colorful but full version of the same speech given before Congress July 10, 2003 by Ron Paul
The full written text given before Congress is also linked from the above site:
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Mormon Overstock President Supports Ron Paul
LAKE JACKSON, Texas – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul was endorsed today by Overstock.com President Jonathan Johnson, who is also joining the “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition.
The following statement of endorsement from Mr. Johnson is personal, and does not represent an endorsement on behalf of any companies or organizations with which he is affiliated, including Overstock.com.
“The federal government has run roughshod on the Constitution and now intrudes into too many areas of our lives. Ron Paul’s staunch adherence to the Constitution, defense of individual liberty and vision of a smaller government are the right prescription for our time,” said Mr. Johnson.
Jonathan E. Johnson III has been the President of Overstock.com since 2008. Mr. Johnson joined Overstock.com in 2002 as the Company’s General Counsel and has held various business and legal related positions at the company. He has been part of Overstock.com’s meteoric growth, as the company has grown from a small start-up to a company with $1.1 billion in sales and over 1,400 employees throughout Utah.
Prior to joining Overstock.com, Johnson was with TenFold Corporation in various positions, including CFO and General Counsel. Before that, he practiced corporate law in Los Angeles with two international law firms. He also served as a judicial clerk at the Utah Supreme Court.
Johnson received a bachelor’s degree in Japanese from Brigham Young University, studied at Osaka University of Foreign Studies in Japan as a Ministry of Education Scholar, and received his law degree from the BYU Law School.
Johnson lives in Salt Lake with his wife and five sons, and is active in the Utah Republican Party and a longtime member of the board of governors of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce.
Concerning the active “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” coalition, Johnson’s endorsement follows the high-profile support of prominent author and chair of the Utah Tenth Amendment Center Connor Boyack, that of Utah Republican Liberty Caucus Chair Darcy Van Orden, as well as that of everyday LDS Nevadans.
The following statement of endorsement from Mr. Johnson is personal, and does not represent an endorsement on behalf of any companies or organizations with which he is affiliated, including Overstock.com.
“The federal government has run roughshod on the Constitution and now intrudes into too many areas of our lives. Ron Paul’s staunch adherence to the Constitution, defense of individual liberty and vision of a smaller government are the right prescription for our time,” said Mr. Johnson.
Jonathan E. Johnson III has been the President of Overstock.com since 2008. Mr. Johnson joined Overstock.com in 2002 as the Company’s General Counsel and has held various business and legal related positions at the company. He has been part of Overstock.com’s meteoric growth, as the company has grown from a small start-up to a company with $1.1 billion in sales and over 1,400 employees throughout Utah.
Prior to joining Overstock.com, Johnson was with TenFold Corporation in various positions, including CFO and General Counsel. Before that, he practiced corporate law in Los Angeles with two international law firms. He also served as a judicial clerk at the Utah Supreme Court.
Johnson received a bachelor’s degree in Japanese from Brigham Young University, studied at Osaka University of Foreign Studies in Japan as a Ministry of Education Scholar, and received his law degree from the BYU Law School.
Johnson lives in Salt Lake with his wife and five sons, and is active in the Utah Republican Party and a longtime member of the board of governors of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce.
Concerning the active “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” coalition, Johnson’s endorsement follows the high-profile support of prominent author and chair of the Utah Tenth Amendment Center Connor Boyack, that of Utah Republican Liberty Caucus Chair Darcy Van Orden, as well as that of everyday LDS Nevadans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)