What do humanitarians eat?

The humanitarian wishes to be a prime mover in the lives of others. He cannot admit either the divine or the natural order, by which men have the power to help themselves. The humanitarian puts himself in the place of God.

But he is confronted by two awkward facts; first, that the competent do not need his assistance; and second, that the majority of people … positively do not want to be "done good" by the humanitarian…. Of course, what the humanitarian actually proposes is that he shall do what he thinks is good for everybody. It is at this point that the humanitarian sets up the guillotine.

--- Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (New York, 1943), p. 241.

Classic and true. Check out the "regarding" link for an analysis of the Great Society, one of the many chains by which we are bound.

For Schiff: We told you so, you RUDE rat bastards!

What pisses me off as I look back over these videos is how rude and condescending these rat bastards were to Peter Schiff, economic adviser to Ron Paul and one of the very few who warned us that the imaginary prosperity we were enjoying would come to tears, because it was a fiat money bubble which had to burst.

---

So for all of you who laughed at our warnings then, here is a video. Enjoy it. Then go fuck yourselves. If you don't fuck yourselves to death, go read some Austrian Economics.

---

Here is my prediction: the worst is still yet to come. I'm not sure what Peter is saying these days, he's never interviewed anymore, but it is mine.
If you want to patronize Peter's company, it's at http://europac.net/

Bush Attacks Market For Working

So now, the Confuser in Chief has decided to start a brand new war, this one is against the free market. Of course Republicans claim to want a free market, but few of them understand that having a free market involves things like not having corporate welfare, not having price and wage controls, and actually leaving people free to buy and sell based on what they believe to be best, not what some politician thinks best.

So now, Dubya the Decider has decided to crack down on anyone "taking advantage" of the changes in the oil market brought about by the hurricane by adjusting their prices to match reality.

Some who -- like Bush -- never studied economics, must be asking themselves "is this guy arguing for higher prices?" Yes, I am. Why? Because that's what reality requires.

For a time, there is less refining capactity in America. That means we are producing less gasoline. If we continue to attempt to consume the same amount of gasoline, we will have shortages. We cannot consume more than we produce. The free market has a solution to this problem. It's called a price. When the price goes up, people -- even people far away from the hurricaine -- will have incentive to consume less. Prices are always moving towards -- but never reaching -- the point where supply and demand are equal. Any change in production or in the value of consumption must be reflected in the price, or the market fails to work.

So what happens people are frightened by Bush's threat, and fail to adjust the price to match reality? Shortages, and lines. Waste, as people continue to use fuel which could serve more important needs for less important needs ... as long as they can get it. Then lines at the gas station as they try to replace the fuel they wasted, in order to meet their more important needs. We saw this in the 1970's, when the "free market" Republican in office imposed price and wage controls. Does anyone remember the lines at the pump, the "out of gas" signs appearing on gas stations? I do.

The lobotomized market Bush proposes is the road to disaster. A free market, as proposed by the Libertarian Party is the only cure.

Pauls, and Baldwins, and Barrs ... Oh, My!

There has been much debate among Libertarian and libertarian leaning voters as to which way to vote in the coming election. I wanted to share the thinking which led me to my decision. Firstly, I should state my minimal criteria for considering a candidate:

1. The candidate must argue for shrinking government significantly.
2. The candidate must not argue for growing government in any area at the level at which he is running (e.g. a candidate who argued for State regulation of abortion would be acceptable as a candidate for Federal office, but not at the State leve.)
3. The candidate must not have any clear mental incapacity, such as bigotry.
4. The party platform must be acceptable.
5. If the election of the leader in question is likely, he must have sufficient credibility to convince me that he is likely govern as he campaigned.

There have been three men suggested as potential candidates for libertarian voters:

1. Ron Paul -- Write-In
2. Chuck Baldwin. -- Constitution Party
3. Bob Barr -- Libertarian Party

Clearly, neither Obama nor McCain deserve a second thought. Each has devoted his life to the growth of government, albeit in slightly different directions. If I'm on a jury considering their fate, I might vote for them -- to hang -- but that's the only way they'll get a vote from me without changing virtually every position they hold.

Paul is not a candidate, and although I would frankly prefer him to either of the others on the list, I will not write-in a candidate. It's cheaper and easier to simply stay home on election day. Write-ins are meaningless — they will not be counted, tabulated, recorded, or announced. Nobody will ever know how many people write in Paul's name, or anybody else's for that matter.

Baldwin fails #2, and #4. His party’s platform welcomes only Christians, which is unacceptable to me, both as a matter of policy and a matter of strategy. He also wants the Federal government to control abortion. This does not mean that I consider him a bad guy. I consider him to be a generally Liberty oriented candidate. None the less, I cannot support him.

Barr meets all my criteria. He is the only candidate who does, and therefore, I can elide the more subjective process of choosing between multiple acceptable candidates.

---

There have been some recent criticisms of Barr, which deserve consideration, so I'll address those briefly.

1. Barr is a recent convert to Libertarian who may not be sincere

   This would be a serious issue, if it was likely that Barr would be elected. It is much less important in this election. It will be at least a couple more cycles before we have grown the party enough to have to worry about that. I'm looking forward to it!

2. Barr is a recent convert to Libertarian who may not have the best interests of the party in mind.

   This is an important issue during the primary season. It does not much matter at this point. Barr's what we've got. Votes for Barr will not make him president, but they will make our party credible, if they arrive in sufficient number.

3. Barr is a recent convert to Libertarian who may not have the best interests of the party in mind.

   This is an important issue during the primary season. It does not much matter at this point. Barr's what we've got. Votes for Barr will not make him president, but they will make our party credible, if they arrive in sufficient number.

4. Barr's strategy has been poor when dealing with Ron Paul and/or the Campaign for Liberty.

   This is an important issue during the primary season. It does not much matter at this point. Barr's what we've got. Votes for Barr will not make him president, but they will make our party credible, if they arrive in sufficient number.

---

The bottom line, as I see it, is that we who value freedom must rally behind Barr, regardless of whether we supported his nomination, because he is the nominee we have. For this election cycle, he's the only nominee we have. It is what it is.

---

Never forget, as you consider your vote in the next election, the words of a wise Libertarian thinker, Ron Paul:

It's not about me, it's about the MESSAGE.

General Curtis claims Bob Barr is a traitor

This commentator claims that Bob Barr is "A Traitor" to the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party, because he is not supporting the McSame canidacy.

The problem is, that Bob Barr left the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party years ago, and was even a member of the Libertarian Party's board before becoming a candidate for the nomination and a candidate for president.

Wouldn't endorsing McBama be the error, given this fact?

As for the claim that Barr is "stealing votes" from the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party, the reality is that they have been defrauding Small Government advocates for decades, stealing their votes and their money, by saying "If only we get Congress, we'll shrink government".

This was a lie. It was so proved when they got congress, and did nothing to shrink government.

So then they cried "If only we get the presidency, we'll shrink government".

That was another lie. It was so proved when the got the presidency, and government grew even faster than it had under the Democratic Wing of the One Big Party.

So now they cry that small government advocates owe them their votes. They are entitled, they say, to the everlasting, unquestioning, unrewarded support of anyone who believes in small government, because they have, when it suited their purpose, spouted a little bit of free market rhetoric.

I say that what small government advocates owe the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party is a class action lawsuit, in order to recover the money out of which they were defrauded over the years. This, a knife in the back, and a kick in the head would put us about even with the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party.

Actually, now, if we want to get even, we'll need to do one more thing:

If -- and it's a big if -- we can find any evidence that the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party ever had any allegience to the Constitution, the Free Market, Limited Government, the Rule of Law, Capitalism, Freedom, or anything other than staying in power, we should call them traitors.

McBama Ahead of Barr on Suicide Advocacy

The Chief Evangelist of the Environmentologist Cult, Al Gore, has decided that nobody should ever burn oil for any purpose again.

He claims that McBama, the undifferentiated mess composed of the presidential candidates of the Big Government Party, is way ahead of most politicians in stiving to reach his goal of economic suicide.

I don't know about most politicians, but he sure is way ahead of Bob Barr is forcing us to return to the Horse and Buggy Era! Bob has not recognized any need to abandon technology and return to the era when people could count on their 'Back To Nature' lifestyles to keep them alive to a ripe old age of 40, and sometimes 50!

Barr does not understand that success is sin, and that we need to atone for our lack of grinding poverty and starvation with some good old Human Sacrifice!

Link: My Way News - Gore sets 'moon shot' goal on climate change

Comrade Mitt joins the fight against the Free Market

I guess I'm naive. I was surprised by Mitt Romney's abject economic ignorance at the debate last night. When asked about agricultural subsidies, he said that he didn't think that the Free Market could provide food reliably, and that central planning of the economy by the government was needed to guarantee our food supply.

Just on more reason to vote against Comrade Mitt.

Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November

Remember, remember, 
the fifth of November
The gunpowder treason and plot

I know of no reason
the gunpowder treason
should EVER be forgot.

Watch the clip, and then click the link.

Reagan Government too big for Ron Paul

Here is a hit piece on Ron at Capital Cloak, which is so ripe and full of misinformation that it begs to be Fisked. So here it is:

Reagan Mantle Too Big for Ron Paul

Actually, it was not his mantle, but his government that was too big. We libertarians believe that government should not interfere with your fireplace.

Libertarian conservatives have been busy artificially bolstering the myth that their presidential candidate of choice, Ron Paul, has a strong grass-roots base and wide appeal. During Fox News’ sophomoric cell phone text message voting during the second GOP presidential candidates’ debate, Ron Paul’s boosters voted early and often, causing the post-debate results to appear skewed toward the opinion that Paul was the winner of the debate, despite his trip to the proverbial woodshed courtesy of Rudy Giuliani for his argument that America brought 9/11 upon itself. Initially I thought that perhaps some of Paul’s poll votes were coming from Democrats hoping to dilute strong performances by Giuliani or Romney by voting for the least likely and most provocative of the candidates. However, comments posted by Paul supporters on conservative Internet sites or in blogs indicate that Paul is viewed by some as the only true conservative in the race and a champion of the constitution. Of course, Paul himself declares that he stands for the constitution, and on the surface that sounds like an honorable position to hold.

I am glad that on the surface you support the constitution. I hope that your support will broaden and deepen as time goes one. I suppose I should point out for those who did not see the debate that this is a misrepresentation of what Paul said. Don't take my word for it, watch the footage on youtube. Then consider the difference between causation and justification.

When it comes to government spending and government involvement in social matters, Paul’s urgings to limit government only to the duties expressly permitted by the constitution have appeal and resonate well in conservative circles. What conservative doesn’t want to see certain federal governmental departments disbanded and their duties reverted back to local and state authorities?

Well, if you define the Neo-Conmen as conservatives, they don't. They have expanded government in every area, foreign and domestic.

What conservative doesn’t want to see the dreaded income tax disappear?

Perhaps those who in 12 years in control of congress and 8 years in control of the entire government never bothered to try to get rid of it? But again, I'm assuming that you define neocons as conservatives.

To some conservatives, the economic/social aspects of Paul’s libertarian-leaning principles are a siren song by which they wish to be led, if only someone holding those views could actually secure the GOP nomination. Paul clearly is not a candidate that can win a national election, and for clear-thinking conservatives who can look past their own personal benefits from no income tax and smaller government, the reason for Paul’s lack of appeal is easy to identify.

So the logic is: if you vote for what you want, you might not get what you vote for. If you vote for what you do not want, however, you are sure to get it. Therefore you should vote for what you do not want. That's neocon logic.

Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan. Paul’s supporters may claim he is the true representative of conservatism in the current candidate field, but Paul has an Achilles heel that keeps Reagan conservatives and Regan Democrats alike from ever considering him as anything more than a campaign footnote: He is selective about which portions of the constitution he would adhere to strictly, and “provide for the common defense” is not among them.

Actually, the reason Ron Paul opposes the war in Iraq is because it is an offensive, not a defensive war. Ron Paul supported the war in Afghanistan, because it was, indeed, part of the common defense. He would have liked for Congress to live up to their constitutional duty and declare war even there, however.

In the second GOP candidates’ debate, Paul stated the following: They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald Reagan] was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting… …They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there. Reagan directly repudiated Paul’s isolationist foreign policies 23 years ago on the beach at Normandy, France, a site where American intervention in foreign affairs proved most decisive in freeing Europe from Nazi enslavement: The Boys of Pointe Du Hoc June 6, 1984, Normandy We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation.

Uhhh ... perhaps Mr. Reagan should have referred to governments with expansionist intent and some way to do something about it. It is amazing to me that people can turn Hussein, whose military we defeated in a few weeks, into Hitler, who actually had a larger military then we when WWII stared.

Reagan conservatives and Reagan Democrats need look no further than Reagan’s statement to find sufficient reason to shun Ron Paul’s isolationist ideas. Paul claimed during the second GOP candidates’ debate that the U.S. has been bombing Iraq for 10 years, as if it were unjustified and indiscriminate bombing of cities. That is patently false. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, the U.S. had occasionally bombed Iraq’s air defense stations or shot down Iraqi aircraft because Iraq regularly violated the no-fly zone enacted by the cease-fire that halted the first Gulf War. Paul chooses to ignore the fact that the Gulf War was, as Reagan prescribed, a “response to a tyrannical government with an expansionist intent.” Saddam invaded neighboring Kuwait solely for expansionist and economic motives. He wanted Kuwait’s oil and Kuwait’s ports, and Kuwait’s accumulated wealth, and so decided to take it by force. World leaders in 1991 had the fortitude to band together and, led by the U.S. military, pushed Saddam back behind his original borders. Had Saddam not violated the terms of the cease-fire by targeting our aircraft, there would have been no need for any further bombing. The defense of the no-fly zone lasted from 1991 until Operation Iraqi Freedom made it a moot point by removing Saddam from the equation because of his failure to abide by any of the UN conditions for the cease-fire enacted in 1991. Thus the current Operation Iraqi Freedom is merely a resumption of hostilities and is a continuation of the Gulf War.

So the United States should remove any government that violates UN resolutions? Does this include Israel, which refuses to abide by UN resolution 242 (among dozens of other resolutions)? Personally, I am opposed to your proposed invasion of Israel. The United States should simply withdraw from the UN, which has no business commanding US troops who enlisted in the US military to defend the United States. If the UN wants it's resolutions enforced, they should raise an army, and they should pay for it. Of course the UN resolution thing is a thin justification for our attack on Iraq, since they didn't want us to go. But if it had been a good idea to go, I would have said "Go, and the UN be damned". I also would have opposed any suggestion that we invade ourselves for ignoring the resolution.

Saddam, like Hitler, was removed, and rebuilding a nation and protecting it from foreign interference by those with designs on fomenting chaos, much like post WWII, is why our troops remain in Iraq. Had Ron Paul been president instead of Truman or Eisenhower, all of Germany would have fallen under Soviet occupation and Japan would have been overrun by Soviet or Chinese forces seeking retribution because Paul would have pulled American troops out of both places and brought them home immediately upon conclusion of the war. There would have been no Marshall Plan, no rebuilding and friendship alliance with Japan. No BMWs; no VWs; no Hondas; no Toyotas. Likewise, in Paul’s isolationist world, there would be no democratic South Korea. There would only be communist Korea, since Paul would not have committed U.S. troops to defend the free people of South Korea.

Wow ... that is one commonality between Saddam and Hitler. They're dead. They also had really funky mustaches. Maybe these comparisons of Hitler, who commanded a huge military and could actually threaten the world, and Hussein, who commanded a tiny military and could actually threaten a country the size of Rhode Island, are not as absurd as I thought.

Ron Paul wants America to approach foreign policy with a pre-WWI mentality, when the mindset centered on the idea that America should not involve itself in any foreign war, and we nearly allowed all of Europe to be defeated by Germany. That war was so destructive that the isolationists redoubled their efforts between 1919 and 1941 to keep America from ever entangling itself in a foreign war. That isolationism resulted in Nazi occupation of continental Europe and Scandinavia, and horrific bombings of England. It also cost 6 million Jews their lives while Americans, who thought then as Ron Paul now does about intervention, stood silently on the sidelines of history, much to their condemnation.

Well, it would have been interesting to watch Hussein try to take over Europe. Turkey might have cooperated with him, allowing him to get as far as ... Greece. And then he would have been a grease spot, because Greece is part of the EU. Please don't think that I"m implying that the EU is not militarily pathetic. Just that they were not as pathetic as Hussein. Of course if we announce that the EU is responsible for defending themselves, they have economies that would allow them to defend themselves. This is in stark contrast to Iraq.

Paul’s supporters should consider another sentence from Reagan’s powerful speech at Normandy. His explanation for why America’s military remained in Europe to confront potential Soviet aggression long after WWII, was simple, profound, and prophetic of our continued presence in Iraq: Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy.

Actually, Reagan was paraphrasing Wilson, who entered into WWI, to "make the world safe for democracy", and thereby turned what would have been a defeat of the Kaiser into a rout of the Kaiser, and thereby ensured the rise of Hitler. I guess blowback is not a new concept after all?

Regardless of how Iraq’s democracy came into existence, it is there now. Iraq has a constitution. Iraq has a democratically elected parliament that represents the wide variety of religious and tribal divisions of its population. It is imperfect, and it is often contentious, but so was America’s in its early years. The question Paul should be forced to address is, “Does America have a duty or role in history to protect and defend democracy in the world?” As an isolationist he will argue that such is not America’s role as it is not defined in the constitution. Reagan understood history far better than Paul, who would like to believe that the world begins and ends at America’s shores and nothing that occurs in foreign lands is worthy of intervention unless American interests are directly threatened. Technically speaking, from an economic/trade point of view, would it have made any difference to isolationists like Paul if Europe had been enslaved by Hitler as long as Hitler let America alone? America could have conducted normal trade in goods with Nazi Europe, including lucrative arms sales. Rescuing Britain, France, and Italy from Nazi control certainly involved an enormously “entangling alliance,” something George Washington warned of and Paul concurs with wholeheartedly. Why then did America free Europe and remain there in defensive posture for decades? The answer, as Reagan stated so perfectly, is that isolationism has never been and never will be an appropriate response to tyranny. Tyranny must be confronted wherever it exists, defeated, and replaced by freedom. Ron Paul would rather put his head in the sand and selfishly keep democracy and liberty all to himself.

Actually, I get the idea that Ron Paul believes we should avoid sand. Of course he does not want to keep democracy to himself. He just recognizes that if you impose democracy on people who do not want it, they will vote it away, and that when you force liberty on people at gunpoint, you have not freed them. The mindset in the Middle East is not quite what prevailed in America during and after the Revolution. If you want liberty and democracy, you have to be willing to die for it. We were. They are not.

Reagan understood something that Paul does not: America does not hold an exclusive right to freedom. America does not possess liberty out of luck or superior intellect. America is free and powerful because it is destined to use that power to spread and preserve freedom throughout the world. Paul’s strict but selective constitutional adherence seems to ignore that the right to liberty is identified in the Declaration of Independence, not as an American, English, or French right, but a right that belongs to all men, presumably even those in the Middle East whom Paul would abandon as apparently unworthy of these Jeffersonian words: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I don't think that Paul ever said we should prevent Iraq from gaining freedom, if and when they want it. Just that we should not try to impose it on them, when they do not.

This is the great issue of our time, and Paul falls woefully short in his willingness to engage in the defense of freedom. His GOP opponents more closely resemble the Reagan tradition. For example, when asked in the third GOP candidates’ debate what was the most important moral issue facing America, Giuliani replied that the greatest moral issue is whether America will share its blessings of freedom and liberty with the rest of the world. Conservatives should not allow themselves to be fooled by the Ron Paul Internet “phenomenon.” Paul was declared the winner of two GOP candidates’ debates by MSNBC, CNN, Politico, Slate, ABC News, and myriad other left-leaning media sources. A review of Wikipedia’s Ron Paul page certainly could leave an undiscerning reader with the idea that Paul has widespread support and is whipping all comers in the GOP debates. The liberal slant is obvious. Clearly from an ideological perspective liberals do not embrace Ron Paul’s libertarian views, so why is he the darling of the media and many Internet blogs? Quite simply, it is because Paul is 2008’s Ross Perot. If even 3 percent of conservative voters are swayed by Paul, it could spell the difference in a tight race and throw victory to the left, just as Perot’s theatrics did in 1992 and 1996. The left knows this and is in fact counting on it for victory.

The problem with defending freedom abroad is that in order to do so, you have to destroy it at home. Have a look at the Patriot Act, or the draft for Vietnam and Korea, or an income tax form if you do not understand this concept

Libertarian conservatives should not worship Paul as the constitutional savior they hold him out to be, and Reagan Conservatives and Reagan Democrats should remember that Paul is an isolationist hoarder of liberty, unwilling to preserve it among nations who possess it or share it with oppressed peoples who long for it and implore America to help them obtain it.

I suppose that Washington and Jefferson, by your definition, were "hoarders" of liberty, when they suggested "free trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none". But they never suggested that we should prevent people who so desired from achieving liberty. It is not like, were they to achieve liberty on their own, we would somehow have less. You cannot hoard liberty. If the Iraqis truly wanted it, they could have removed Hussein themselves. I think that you fail to understand what Reagan did understand (at least after Lebanon): the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. If you need help in this respect, have a look at the irrationality of your own.

Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson

With so much wonderful video, I'm having a hard time convincing myself to write. Here is some more! This was a great interview, with Tucker Carlson getting off the best line:

I hope you can come on regularly, to just give a tutorial on what it means to be free.

Thirteen Things That Should Earn Your Vote

Here are thirteen reasons you should vote for Ron Paul in the upcoming primary (and draft him to run as a Libertarian, if he doesn't get the nomination). It feels awfully strange for me to be endorsing a Republican candidate. I have never voted for a Republican in my life. But in this case, in the primary, I will make an exception, and if comes down to Dr. Paul vs. a Libertarian, I will vote for whichever I think more likely to win at the time. Maybe we'll get lucky, and Ron Paul will get the nomination, and we Libertarians will endorse (or join in nominating, I don't know how it would work) him as a party. But before we worry about such tactical matters, here are thirteen things that should guarantee Ron the votes of any peace loving and freedom loving American patriot:

1. He will get us out of IRAQ. Not in years, or in months, but as quickly as it can be done without compromising their security. The (big government and neocon) Republicans won't. The Democrats won't. Ron Paul is the anti-war candidate. That alone should be enough reason.
2. He will help us get back to sleep. After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, one of their admirals is quoted as saying "I fear we have awakened a slumbering giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve." The Giant hasn't slept a wink since 1941. It is time for the Giant to sleep again, so he will be prepared, if and when he is again threatened.
3. He will make us wealthy. We have an economic system which is the most powerful engine of wealth creation known to man. But that engine is fouled with interventions which sap it's performance, and misdirect it's output. Real, natural economic growth benefits everyone. Government distorted economic growth benefits only the aristocracy of pull. Look around you: which do you see?
4. He will tell us the truth. You can tell if most politicians are lying by watching her face carefully. If her lips are moving, she is lying. Dr. Paul throughout his life, has stated his intentions, stuck to his guns, and kept his promises.
5. He will return our independence. We do not need NAFTA or CAFTA for free trade. We only need to drop our tariffs and let the market work. We do not need the UN to be a force for peace. We can become a shining example of rational peace by refusing foreign adventures, but being prepared, if attacked, to respond, to crush the aggressor, and to withdraw, without occupation and without nation building.
6. He will start the process of emancipating our posterity from the crushing load of debt that is the legacy of big government. This debt is taxation, to be imposed on a helpless group of people without any representation. This wrong must be redressed.
7. He will protect our money supply. The Federal Reserve board is the root of all inflation. When they print fiat dollars, their value The value comes from a reduction in the value of the money already circulating. This predominantly hurts the poor, as the rich have investment bankers to advise them. It is the most regressive and most destructive of taxes.
8. He will secure our borders against illegal immigration. Libertarians want open borders. But we recognize that we can ill afford them, until we have put our house in order. Before we can open our borders to peaceful people, we must roll back the welfare state, so those come come to produce, and produce and prosper, not to enter the hospice of welfare. Before we can entirely roll back the welfare state, we must build our economy so that it is workers, not jobs, that are scarce. Once this is done, we can allow more legal immigration, instead of ignoring illegals.
9. He will veto any national ID card bill which crosses his desk. If Americans want to hear the chilling words "your papers, sir", they should rent Casablanca, and take careful note of what happens in a police state, when one is unable to produce them. Then he should take a moment to be grateful that we are not in that time or that place.
10. He will protect our privacy. Identity theft is possible because Americans now have a single identifier, their SSN. It should be used only for social security. Next, laws requiring businesses to release the bank balances, medical records, and other private information of their customers should be repealed. Government has the right to invade your privacy only with a warrant issued by a judge to whom probable cause has been presented.
11. He will protect your property. The Constitution allows the government to take your property only for public use and only with just compensation. But now, the government has arrogated unto itself the power to confiscate your property, without just compensation (which would be the amount for which you were willing to sell it), and give it to private companies for private use. Even worse, some regulations allow the government to forbid you use of your property, while leaving you the deed, and to confiscate the value of your property with no compensation at all. This tyrannous behavior is inexcusable, and must be stopped.
12. He will restore us to a constitutional and sane foreign policy. No more will we be dragged into foreign wars, in countries we cannot locate on the map, because of entangling alliances which we have formed, in defiance of the warnings that both Jefferson and Washington gave our nation in it's youth. We have troops in 130 countries. The constitution only authorized us to keep troops in one. Support the troops. Support them here.
13. He will make us safe. Government cannot protect us from all the evils of the world, but our biggest threat comes from government itself, finally free of the constitutional chains which have bound it, and mad with power, it is wasting our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor with abandon. It must be restrained before it is too late.

Those are just 13 of the many reasons that Ron Paul is the best hope for America. Of course, each time your best hope is taken, your second best hope becomes your best hope. But each time, it is more distant and more forlorn. So I beg you with all the earnestness at my command: don't let this hope go. Join the Ron Paul Revolution, and remind the politicians that America is yours, not theirs.

Great interview with Ron Paul!

Great interview with Ron Paul! Go, Ron, Go!