It's easy to forget sometimes, what with the roughly 8 billion wars and conflicts our country is involved in all around the world, that when the federal government means to do war, they do war best right here at home.

Case in point: Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and her unbridled effort to obliterate family farms.

Last August, the Department of Labor looked around, scratched its head, and decided the new thing it should focus on was applying child labor laws to agricultural settings. Offhand, you're thinking, "Well, shouldn't they be applied?" Well, sure. In a corporate feed lot. What we're talking about here is the use of children on farms that those children's families own. Put into practice, these laws will, in the words of a Department of Labor press release, prohibit children under the age of 18 from "being employed in the storing, marketing, and transporting of farm product raw materials."

Furthermore, the laws would designate a number of farm-related places as completely off limits to children. Dangerous places like country grain elevators. And silos. And... livestock auctions?

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman faced off for a televised debated on fiscal policy Monday afternoon in a battle likely to appeal to policy wonks on both sides of the political spectrum.

The two staked out positions that predictably offered sharp contrasts, with Paul emphasizing his belief in "very small government" during the appearance on Bloomberg TV.

Reasons and descriptions are provided with many warnings and side effects to the human mind and body, in which this device causes much damage and control without one's consent of the rfid chip device.

Back in 1984 the group Twisted Sister had a smash hit titled "We're Not Gonna Take It."  It was a teen rebellion song against parents that nearly all young teens embraced.  So here I am, a middle aged man, driving home from work listening to the oldies station last night....and this song graced the speakers of my car.  At first nostalgia took over me, a time when I was young and causing trouble.  My smile in remembering the past soon faded and I realized this song still has meaning to this older and much wiser gentleman.

While this is not the actual year of 1984, in many ways it is the year 1984 of George Orwell's novel.  A police state has enveloped this nation.  We have a duopoly that is controlling our nation for our own protection of course.   Since the year 1984 our federal government has grown and individual rights has decreased.   Looking back now at how life is different...saddens me.   In many ways we have so much more security and there is less stress, but at a cost.  

Anyway, today I had to watch the old video...of Dee Snyder singing the anthem that made the group famous.  I watched the extended version where the father spouts his tirade at the young boy.....and I realized that this video and song has so many correlations to life today..and reflects how I think as a libertarian.   Here are the lyrics.

Oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

we've Got The Right To Choose And
there Ain't No Way We'll Lose It
this Is Our Life, This Is Our Song
we'll Fight The Powers That Be Just
don't Pick Our Destiny 'cause
you Don't Know Us, You Don't Belong

oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

oh You're So Condescending
your Gall Is Never Ending
we Don't Want Nothin', Not A Thing From You
your Life Is Trite And Jaded
boring And Confiscated
if That's Your Best, Your Best Won't Do

oh.....................
oh.....................
we're Right/yeah
we're Free/yeah
we'll Fight/yeah
you'll See/yeah

oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore
no Way!

oh.....................
oh.....................
we're Right/yeah
we're Free/yeah
we'll Fight/yeah
you'll See/yeah

we're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

we're Not Gonna Take It, No!
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

just You Try And Make Us
we're Not Gonna Take It
come On
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
you're All Worthless And Weak
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore
now Drop And Give Me Twenty
we're Not Gonna Take It
oh Crinch Pin
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh You And Your Uniform
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

The father reminds me of current day liberals and conservatives of big government.  Compliance is the only option.....individuality is not an option, freedom is not an option.  You need to act a certain way or you will be punished.   What is sad is that your average American is like the brother who is giggling as the father berates the child for being an individual with his own thoughts.

We are not going to take it any longer.  Already we have the highest rate of Americans renouncing their citizenship.

http://jamesthe.newsvine.com/_news/2012/04/17/11247251-record-number-of-americans-renounce-citizenship?last=1334677805&threadId=3396613&sp=0&pc=25#last_2

People are tired of this police state.....sexual assaults by our government....assassinations, imprisonment without trial...lack of choice in our personal lives.  If you speak out against the welfare or warfare state...you are talked down to as not caring or even worse...unpatriotic.   This verse in the song explains it quite well on how libertarians and those who want choice think

oh You're So Condescending
your Gall Is Never Ending
we Don't Want Nothin', Not A Thing From You
your Life Is Trite And Jaded
boring And Confiscated
if That's Your Best, Your Best Won't Do

I am tired of being talked down to because I want freedom in my life....because I want to make choices for myself and to take responsibility of my own body.  I am tired of liberals taking the moral high ground on what I should do with my labor...I am tired of conservatives taking the moral high ground on what I should do with my personal life.

I dont want nothin', not a thing from you.

and We're not going to take it....ANYMORE

“It is obscene for those claiming to protect life, liberty, and property to obtain their revenue by violating life, liberty, and property. There are plenty of ways to obtain revenue without force: insurance, user fees, advertising, lotteries, and donations are already used by many local and state governments for a good portion of their revenue. Let them be true public servants and live within the means that these sources provide. People might even pay more voluntarily once they're no longer forced to turn over 1/3 to 1/2 of their wealth to governments.

“Ultimately, it is about the type of society we want to have. We can accomplish a lot voluntarily when we mutually respect each other's lives and property. It begins by respecting the right of people to keep the fruits of their labor. A good start would be the abolition of the personal income tax, which only adds insult to the injury of theft by invading every part of the taxpayer's privacy as well as making the second week of April a misery instead of a time to enjoy the early spring.”

More common sense on healthcare from the good Doctor.

Freedom must be embraced and not disregarded.

The Ron Paul phenomenon is perhaps the most interesting story to come out of the 2012 election to date, simply because he breaks all the stereotypes of a successful candidate or movement. Ron Paul is not handsome (like Mitt Romney). He’s not exciting (like Sarah Palin). He’s not charismatic (like a Reagan or JFK). He’s not super articulate (like Obama). And he’s sure not young. If I were to run for President in 2030, I would still be younger than Ron Paul is today.

So what’s the attraction? Why are so many Americans passionate fans of Ron Paul? And why in particular do so many young people who tune out of politics, tune in for Ron Paul?

Let me start with his #1 attribute. Ron Paul is RELENTLESS. He just never gives up. It has been said that if you keep your suits long enough, they’ll eventually come back in style. Ron Paul’s brand of Libertarianism and freedom is back in style – because of his dedication, persistence and tenacity.

The foundation of relentlessness is unshakable faith. Tim Tebow’s NFL season full of miracles proves the value of intense faith. Well, Ron Paul has that kind of intense faith in the old fashioned values of God, country, freedom, personal responsibility, and capitalism. And Paul’s enthusiasm and faith is genuine, not fake or manufactured. Voters can see that and they like it.

Secondly, while Ron Paul is not your traditional politician, and is painted by the media as extreme, the voters are starting to realize that it is the traditional status quo politicians that led us right into this economic Armageddon. Those “traditional” views about everything – debt, taxes, spending, entitlements, Social Security, bailouts for billionaire bankers, the Fed, wars – led to the insolvency and bankruptcy of this great country. Perhaps it’s time to think "out of the box."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/04/understanding-ron-paul-phenomenon/#content#ixzz1lWE6yhJ8

I have been going over some of the works of Thomas Jefferson.   How he ended up in politics and the mood of the colonists prior to the Revolutionary War.  Many had felt "enslaved."  That was a word that was used often.  Tyranny was another word.  Lets move forward about 240 years.

We have what many people call a central government that is "oppressive."  Enslavement and tyranny are words that are being used again.   We have the Patriot Act, NDAA....SOPA,PIPA or at least mention of them.  We have endless war, occupation of 130 countries and 900 bases around the world.  Assassinations of American citizens without due process.

We have OWS, Tea Party, abuses by the police in "breaking up" these gatherings.  We have government deciding what we can eat, how we can act and feel..We are taxed for numerous things, need approval to do most anything...i.e. licences, permits.  We have a healthcare system that forces us to purchase a good from a private organization.  We have a central bank in which our economy is artificially altered and controlled by a select people.  We have a propaganda system...i.e. the media owned by 5 corporations..controlling all of our information...

Anyway, I came across this quote. I have seen it before, but its been a while.  I think it is quite relevent, and I think people really need to take notice as to what is going on...and question what they believe in.  Do you trust others more than yourself? And if you do not...then why would you want to give the power over you to these people?  Think about how our politicians say one thing, and then do another, and continue what they said they were against.  Think hard how the federal government is getting larger and more powerful and we are losing more and more rights.

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.”

— Thomas Jefferson

South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint, the darling of the Tea Party wing nuts of the GOP, is urging Republican candidates to listen to Ron Paul. “One of the things that’s hurt the so-called conservative alternative is saying negative things about Ron Paul,” DeMint told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. “I’d like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas.”

Why the sudden enthusiasm of Republican leaders for Ron Paul? Credit his surprisingly strong showing in New Hampshire, where 47 percent of primary voters between the ages of 18 and 29 voted for him.

No other Republican candidate has come nearly as close to winning over young voters – and the GOP desperately needs young voters. The median age of registered Republicans is rising faster than the median age of America.

The Republican right thinks Paul’s views on the economy are responsible for this fire among the young. Yesterday evening, on Larry Kudlow’s CNBC program, I squared off with Larry and the Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore. Both are convinced young people are attracted by Paul’s strict adherence to the views of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, and Paul’s desire to move America back to the gold standard.

Baloney. The young are flocking to Ron Paul because he wants to slice military spending, bring our troops home, stop government from spying on American citizens, and legalize pot.

I'm a fan of "Impossible Shots" on the Outdoor Channel on my cable service. Tom Knapp, a phenomenal shotgunner, was a common cast member. After he disappeared for a while, I looked him up and got on his mailing list. The block quote portion of this missive is from his latest mailing. It is for his new series, "Shooting Stars", on Discovery's Velocity Channel, a new offering from the Discovery group of channels. It touts an "Awesome night of shooting extravaganzas and a return to the Annie Oakley school of shooting exhibitions.

Not just another Reality TV show. The premise of this show is to salute the many different public and government services that we all owe thanks to for our well being. The first one hour special is Dedicated to Police Departments throughout our Beautiful USA

 I'm just wondering who the hell thinks I owe my "well being" to ANY "public and governmental service". THEY owe ME a return of the monies stolen from me against my will, but I'd cheerfully settle for never stealing another cent from me. I want to remain on his mailing list to see if more BS like this comes, but I ALSO don't want to have to wade through the newsletters to find the hidden authoritarianisms they contain! One thing is certainly true, however. I CERTAINLY won't be watching ANYTHING that will "salute the many different public and governmental services that we all owe thanks to for our well being." Just ain't happening. Now, of all the so-called "services" the government extorts us into paying for, police don't rate at the bottom. Not the top, but not the bottom. many cops WANT to do good. They are often ignorant of the limitations the Constitution has placed on their actions (that are ignored by them out of that ignorance). But most of them mean well. Of course the to Hell is paved with good intentions, so that isn't saying much.

In some states, the police are better than in others. But they all have degenerated into a money-making scheme everywhere. They CERTAINLY don't provide much in the way of "services" that could be provided cheaper and far more efficiently by private enterprise and an armed citizenry. And every time they enforce a gun law, they violate the Constitution. every time they enforce a public decency law, they violate the Constitution. Every time they are used to break up a demonstrarion they are violating the Constitution.

One thing is sure. Even if my son follows through on his goal of becoming a Texas State Trooper, I won't be watching a salute to police forces. I'm sure this will be a sensitive topic to those who comment here. keep it civil, please.

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s argument that freedom breeds immorality ignores the history of America when it was most free. We are now at our least free, and at our most immoral, by any measure of social pathology. We have proven for decades on end that government can deliver neither prosperity nor salvation – no matter who runs it.

We don’t need 40,000 more laws each year to live free. The Constitution is just a skinny pamphlet; the Ten Commandments fit on a recipe card. Even a society of atheists would live peaceably together if they did not lie, covet, steal, kill, disrespect parents, commit adultery, or attempt to play God.

Some people think we should take those Ten Commandments down from our government buildings. Not me. I think we ought to take down the government buildings.

To pursue happyness, one must have life and liberty. Therefore, you gotta be able to PRESERVE your life and liberty. People who want to disarm you oppose your life, liberty, and pursuit of happyness. Why? Because they fear your ability to defend yourself will spread to defending yourself FROM them.

I used to fly occasionally. BEFORE the TSA sexual assaulters were accepted. When it was only metal detectors. Had I been on Flight 93, on 9-11, I would NOT have been "unarmed at the will of the law". ( The song ) Prior to full body x-rays and sexual-assault patdowns, I ALWAYS carried two "CIA LETTER OPENERS", high-impact fiberglass double-edged daggers, and an "Ace of Spades", a punch-dagger of the same material. 4 guys with boxcutters vs 3 guys with these things (YES, I would have shared), and Flight 93 might not have wound up in a Pennsylvania cornfield, and 42 of the 42 total people on board might STILL be enjoying "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happyness". But all the passengers (well, except for the bad guys, of course) followed the illegal laws. It's why I don't fly anymore.

Retired marine Colonel Jeff Cooper invented a color-coded system to describe the various conditions at which people operate in regards to personal self defense. White, Yellow, Orange, and Red. HERE it is. If you live in White, I pity you if bad things ever happen. It's NOT paranoia to watch for threats. I live in Condition Yellow. That way, me and mine will ALWAYS have the best chance of enjoying "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happyness". And, since I have no one with the power to enforce political correctness down my throat, I profile to watch for threats. I ignore small children, old people, and most others. Since violence mostly is initiated these days by either gangbangers (who dress the part, mostly), and men of middle eastern descent between the ages of 17 and 25, guess what triggers an upgrade of status to Orange"? Less so for possible Muslims than gangbangers here in the continental US, but I'm NOT willing to be the next victim.

In order to enjoy my life, my liberty, and my pursuit of happyness, I need total control over what I have earned. Hence, my opposition to taxation. It robs me of a portion of what I labored for.

I've never thought I was guaranteed to achieve "Happyness", just the right to pursue it. Nor do I expect (OR DESIRE) anyone to try to give me ANYTHING to aid me on my way. I only DEMAND they leave me alone to pursue it. And I have NO interest in surrendering MY earnings to give them to others. I earn mine, you earn yours. THAT'S the American way.

In order to protect yourself adequately, you need the proper tools. The PROPER tools are the best weapons you can afford and use competently. Practice often, there's ALWAYS room to improve. And remember, while a .22 is less than perfect for self defense, the .22 in your pocket when the robbery begins is better than the .45 on the dresser at home.

When guns are outlawed, I'll BE an outlaw. Trite, but true.

ALL men (that includes you ladies, it's just a generic term here) were born equal. Colonel Colt made'em more so.

What does it take to make a 110 pound, 80 yr old lady the physical equal to a 220 pound male intent on taking her money? 2 pounds of hartford steel (the weight of the average .38 Colt revolver, made in Hartford, Connecticutt).

"No one ever raped a .38" Paxton Quigley, premiere female instructor of female armed self defense.

Any so-called supporter of Woman's Rights who believes in Gun Control Laws ISN'T actually a supporter of Woman's Rights.

One defiinition of a Gun Rights Advocate- a liberal who has been raped.

An armed person is a citizen. AN unarmed man is a slave.

"If you're not willing to defend yourself, why should you expect anyone else to do it for you?" By a Viner, screen name of There They Go Again

 Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. L. Neil Smith

If it seems that most of these ramblings are about guns, well, it's because if we aren't free to defend our life, then we do not have the liberty to pursue happyness. 

The man has been saying the same thing for 30 years...a president with integrity...what a change.

enjoy.

Thanks to our media and many government officials, however, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a prominent news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws, more debt, and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individual responsibility.

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we want to imprison every disturbed or alienated individual who fantasizes about violence? Do we really believe government can provide total security? 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 unless they use force or fraud against others. 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.

QUOTEBOX: Ron Paul, in his own words

* On the U.S. Patriot Act: ``I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic, because it undermines our liberty ... Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security. I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security.

* On siding with Israel against Iran: ``Why do we have this automatic commitment that we're going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel? So I think they're quite capable of taking care of themselves.''

* On foreign aid: ``I think the aid is all worthless. It doesn't do any good for most of the people. You take money from poor people in this country, and you end up giving it to rich people in poor countries.''

* On the drug war: ``I think the federal war on drugs is a total failure ... Why don't we handle the drugs like we handle alcohol?''

* On following the golden rule in foreign policy: ``I think we should practice a policy of good will to other people. What about saying that we don't do anything to any other country that we don't have them do to us?''

* On leaving the Taliban alone in Afghanistan: ``Taliban doesn't mean they want to come here and kill us. The Taliban means they want to kill us over there, because all they want to do is get people who occupy their country out of their country, just like we would if anybody tried to occupy us.''

* On gay marriage: ``I think the government should just be out of it, I think it should be done by the Church or private contract and we shouldn't have this argument, who's married and who isn't married. I have my standards but I shouldn't have to impose my standards on others, others have standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me.''

* On the 9/11 attacks: ``Our policies definitely had an influence. And you talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm, they say, yes, we don't like American bombs to be falling on our country ... So I'm saying policies have an effect. But that's a far cry from blaming America.''

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Alberts+Paul+candidacy+thrives+libertarian+unconventional+views/5775051/story.html#ixzz1f2cchNdi

OccupyWashingtonDC.org seeks a major transformation to a participatory democracy in the economy as well as in government. For forty years, concentrated corporate interests have acted with intent to take over government and other institutions. We seek an end to the rule of concentrated wealth and corporate power by shifting control, wealth and ownership to the people.

Blah, blah, blah, Ron Paul is awesome.

As college students, we’ve all heard them –– Ron Paul supporters who rant and rave about how their libertarian savior is going to bring freedom back to the country, legalize pot and pull us out of Afghanistan. Allow my prickly beard to burst the idealistic bubble for you all: Ron Paul could never be president. And considering the circumstances, that’s probably the biggest compliment anyone could give him.

What Americans claim to crave from their politicians is honesty. We say we want the truth, but when it comes right down to it, the facts can be downright depressing. So instead we go for a candidate who tells us what we want to hear. We go for a candidate who claims their political party was doing it right all along. We vote for whomever can scream their pre-written talking points the loudest. Love him or hate him, Ron Paul isn’t that guy.

Ron Paul is running for the Republican Party’s nomination, but in many respects, it’s hard to see why. As a libertarian, Paul believes in a small government that doesn’t mess with America’s free-market economy (totally kosher for Republicans). But Paul also believes the federal government should keep it’s hands off same-sex marriage, get rid of torture and pull out of all foreign wars (all about as kosher as a roasted pig wrapped in bacon).

What’s worse, Ron Paul has held the same views on just about everything since he was elected to Congress in the 1970s. Compared to every single Republican front runner, Ron Paul is the only one who hasn’t been made a fool of by flip-flopping opinions. Michele Bachmann is pretty consistent as well, but being consistently crazy is rarely a positive attribute.

90 seconds is all the talking time Ron Paul receieved in last nights GOP debate in the first hour.

90 seconds out of 3600 seconds available.

that means that 3510 seconds were available to the remaining candidates to spout their nonsense of authoritarianism.

When are the people of this country going to stand up for what is right and demand that we have fair elections and that our media be unbiased in its reporting?????  Especially when it comes to presidential and political campaigns.

Once the people realize that what is being done to Ron Paul by ALL media organizations, then they need to question   WHY?????

We need to question what is being told to us.   We need to question authority and the media.   When different news sources from opposite sides of the spectrum are doing the same thing.......something is just not right.   I dont want to hear he is not electable.   That is what the media tells us over and over and over again.   If they were to tell the public the opposite...that he was the only electable candidate...I am sure the results would be different.  If he were given 3510 seconds out of 3600 the results would be different.  If the other candidates were only given 90 seconds out of an hour to spread the plans....the results would be different.

90 seconds.......90 seconds

Americans please take 90 seconds and think about this....and if you truly are fair...and are for freedom of speech....and for a free and fair election....then please let your voice be heard about this.  Contact the media...contact your local politicians......

We need to stand up and reject this tyranny.

peace.

It says here a Canadian outfit called "Adbusters" is persuading its fellow parasites in the "Occupy" camps to demand the creation of a "Robin Hood Tax", to be levied on and collected from, er ... Western Civilization.

To give you an idea of who and what these creatures are, they generate print ads and TV spots, full of cute catchphrases and the usual lies and distortions, attacking industrial capitalism, with an emphasis (shades of Thorstein Veblen!) on their bitter hatred for something they call "consumerism", which can roughly be defined as the heinous act of buying and enjoying something they dislike and don't approve of—except of course, if you do, they want a piece of the action.

NATCHITOCHES, La., October 23, 2011—Ron Paul is a consistent man. He's been preaching the same economic gospel for two generations, a gospel based on the teachings of economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, leavened by the objectivism of Ayn Rand. He's been convinced for decades of the dangers of fiat money (money backed only by confidence in the government that creates it), the supreme importance of the individual, the primacy of personal liberty as a political principle, and a laissez faire approach to the economy.

Paul believes and says the same things now that he said 40 years ago, but that's a minor type of consistency. People learn and change over the decades, and that's usually praiseworthy, not a sign of moral weakness. If Paul came to political and economic principles 40 years ago that are as true and bright to him today as they were then, that's fine, but that's not what's admirable or important about his consistency.

What's important about Paul is that his ideas are ideologically consistent. They spring from a set of principles, and he's not afraid to let his ideas go where his principles take them.

Ron Paul has the courage of his convictions.

Republicans say that they oppose the growth of the federal government. They want federal power devolved to the states. If you believe them, ask them about same sex marriage, drug legalization, and abortion. Scarcely a Republican in Washington wants those issues left to the states. They want them federalized, just as they wanted to federalize medical decisions in the case of Terri Schiavo. Republicans like to talk about individual liberty, but they don't trust you to do the "right" thing with it any more than Democrats do.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats lies in which aspects of your life they want to control. They don't disagree that you need to be controlled.

Paul does. It isn't that he thinks we should have no laws - he favors a minimal government, not zero government - but rather that he thinks your sphere of personal autonomy should be as large as it can be without damaging the autonomy of others. What control there must be should be as local as possible. If there are to be laws against drug use, they should be state, not federal. There's no constitutional reason that you shouldn't be able to watch porn in your living room while smoking a joint. That your neighbors think it's sleazy is no excuse to create a DEA.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul rallied a sold- out crowd of more than 1800 of his most ardent under-thirty-year-old supporters in New York City Monday night.

Tickets to the event cost $20-25. It was originally scheduled to take place at the famed Webster Hall's Marlin Room, but, the event had to be moved to a room twice as large at the last minute due to an overwhelming response. The final setting was in the Grand Ballroom, which has hosted celebrities to the scale of Mick Jagger and Madonna.

"We are seeing a level of enthusiasm for Ron Paul that can be compared with President Obama in 2008", said Eric Brakey, Media Coordinator for NYC Liberty HQ, the grassroots organization hosting the rally for the candidate. "Congressman Paul's youth support is different now than it was during his last presidential campaign. It's more organized and it's picking up steam and continues to grow".

As the longtime congressman from Texas stepped onto the stage, the crowd screamed with enthusiasm. The audience's biggest reaction came when he spoke about ending the Federal Reserve. "The country has changed in the last four years, but my message hasn't changed" Paul said. "The country is ripe for a true revolution".

Responding to an earlier interview with Jon Stewart, he told the crowd that he is largely ignored by the media for a couple of reasons, one being that "people in charge don't want to hear our message".

Paul, who's making his third bid for the White House, devoted the final moments of his speech to President Obama. "Obama thinks he is going to spend a billion dollars on his [re-election] campaign", but "when truth prevails you don't need a billion dollars".

And to that, the audience burst out chanting the candidate's name and didn't stop until long after he excited the room.

Nothing more needs to be said

Ron Paul 2012

R3VOLUTION

Respondents emphasize that Paul received only three questions during the debate, but “every time he was allowed to talk, he rocked it.”

More specifically, “Dr. Paul is the only one who has never wavered from his set goals which are truly in line with liberty and real conservative values,” a respondent wrote.

“Who do you think won the Republican debate at the Reagan library” has attained over 50 pages of comments from poll voters. And, those commenting have Ron Paul on their mind.

“Ron Paul is the only guy who understands what truly ails America,” the most recent posting reads. Another stated, “the cowardly media is despicable for ignoring him.”

How influential is Ron Paul?
For more than three decades, Paul’s brand of uncompromising libertarianism left him on the fringes of the Republican Party. Only three of the 416 bills he has sponsored in Congress since 1997 even made it out of committee—and two of those were defeated. But events of the last three years—including the meltdown of the financial sector, massive government bailouts of private industry, and an exploding federal deficit—have turned his warnings on the dangers of debt and excessive spending into mainstream Republican thought. The Tea Party has embraced Paul’s belief that the best government is the least government, and that taxes are an intrusion on individual liberty. “Time has come around to where the people are agreeing with much of what I’ve been saying for 30 years,” Paul said in May, when he announced his third campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. “The time is right.”

Ron Paul supporters know he has little chance of becoming the next president, but they say his third bid for the job is about more than winning the GOP nomination or the White House — it’s about guiding the political landscape beyond the Republican-Democrat duopoly that’s controlled Washington for more than a century.

The man who in his 2008 bid was dismissed as a sideshow has emerged this year as the prophet of libertarian-leaning conservatives and tea-party supporters alike and has come to define the burgeoning coalition that preaches lower taxes, global retrenchment and more modest use of federal powers here at home.

In the middle of last month, while you slept (or struggled to earn a paycheck so you could turn half of it over to governments at various levels) America was invaded by alien forces—by which I mean forces alien to every last principle that once made this country worth living in.

Or fighting for.

According to a copyrighted story in the Parkersburg (West Virginia) News and Sentinel written by Pamela Brust, the Transportation Security Administration—those detestable gropers and perverts of song and lawsuit—in conjunction with other federal, state, and local agencies held an all-day field fascist-fest Wednesday, June 14, covering 5,000 square miles of what they termed the "Ohio River Transportation Corridor", a huge area covering parts of Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, all under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security, and cleverly dubbed "Visible Intermodel Prevention and Response".

"VIPR", get it?

The latest new Tim Pawlenty is the born-again neoconservative moving to the far right on warmaking issues, destined to clash with Ron Paul in the presidential debates. Actually, Pawlenty is not a born-again neocon. This is his first birth as warmaker in his latest version of Pawlenty. By contrast with Ron Paul, who has always been Ron Paul.

Today, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, released a column titled “How Should Government Treat Energy Producers?” In his column, Paul explained why a good energy market is great for the economy and what the differences are between government subsidies and tax credits or deductions

When Ron Paul announced four years ago that he was running for president, the congressman from Texas had a tough time attracting attention.

Paul -- known for his calls for a significantly limited government, opposition to the Iraq, Afghan and Libyan conflicts and his drive to get rid of the Federal Reserve -- stayed in Washington to declare his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination on C-Span, the cable television station devoted to government proceedings. His entry earned a one-sentence mention near the end of a Washington Post political story, and little notice elsewhere.

This man makes so much sense its scary......people need to wake up and vote for this man.

The surprising poll results were revealed Saturday as several Republican presidential hopefuls made their way to New Orleans to appeal to southern conservatives. Paul (R-Texas) won nearly 40 percent of the vote while Huntsman, former governor of Utah, nabbed nearly a quarter of the vote.

"This win is just the latest indicator of how the majority of American opinion is turning in Ron Paul’s direction,” Jesse Benton, chairman of Paul's campaign, said in a statement.

NEW YORK (TheStreet ) -- If Ron Paul were to win the GOP presidential nomination, there's a chance he wouldn't have to worry about geographical balance on his ticket.

Paul, a Texas congressman and critic of the Federal Reserve, mentioned a former New Jersey judge and current Fox News talk show host -- Andrew Napolitano -- as a potential running mate, in an interview with TheStreet's Alix Steel in Washington this week.

Ron Paul’s followers’ passion is matched only by his detractors’ derision

Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee and Mitch Daniels have dropped out of the 2012 presidential contest, and, as last week’s column pointed out, Newt Gingrich comes with some serious deficiencies in the family values department.

That leaves Texas Congressman Ron Paul who, at age 75, has announced that he is once again ready to make a third attempt to attain the Oval Office.

“I’ve been beating the same drum for 30 years,” said Paul. “I think the time is right.”

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is worried about the falling value of the U.S. dollar and doesn't want the debt ceiling raised, he told CNBC Wednesday.

But he also doesn't want to default on payments to U.S. bond holders.

Rather than raise the debt ceiling, he wants to see cuts in military spending and sales of some American assets — such as gold reserves.

"They’re worrying about raising the debt limit," said the Texas congressman. "I’m worried about the value of the dollar" especially if the Federal Reserve continues to "print money" whenever it wants.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), known and celebrated for his Libertarian views, delivered a stunning critique of the American Republic on the House floor yesterday. Paul told congress that “the last nail is being driven into the coffin of the American Republic. Yet, Congress remains in total denial as our liberties are rapidly fading before our eyes.” Paul backed up his dismal outlook with the following reason: “the rule of law is constantly rejected and authoritarian answers are offered as panaceas for all our problems.”

Ron Paul attacked a number of U.S. policies that he believes contribute to the crumbling of the American Republic. Paul called out welfarism as one of these programs. ‘Runaway welfarism is used to benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class,” argued Paul. Paul also identified a number of presidential powers that he feels are unnecessary and unconstitutional.  Among the powers that Paul points to are: the ability to “order assassinations,” “engage in torture,” and “wage war at will.”

The case has been made....he deserves to be president and we need him more than we know.

And here we go.....................

Ron Paul 2012

Revolution

I find nothing with which to disagree in Greg Lukianoff's analysis of the state of free speech on today's college and university campuses (see Greg Lukianoff on campus censorship). Censorship is a nearly universal trend, one embraced by both sides of the political spectrum, leaving those on either side who would argue against it with little recourse and no firm ground upon which to mount their objections.

It seems with respect to freedom those who find themselves in positions of power (among others) seem unable or unwilling to grasp the most fundamental tenet of freedom, namely, that in order to be free you must allow those around you to be free as well.

This is going to be a selection of pro-gun and pro-liberty quotes from various sources, famous and not-so-much. I'll edit this article and add more as they occur to me. YOU can add to this in the comment section. Please attribute the quotes where possible. Even give quotes of your own! No quote is too over-used. If you are anti-gun, fell free to be ignored if you get obnoxious. Here's a few to start.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin.

"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free."
—A.E. van Vogt (1951)

"An armed man is a citizen, an un-armed man is a slave" (Sometimes ended as "subject") Robert A. Heinlein

"An Armed Society is a polite Society" Robert A. Heinlein

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." (Often attributed to G. Washington, there is doubt as to it's veracity as a quote. If he didn't say it, he should have!)

"I've heard that phallic symbol argument before, and always from ineffectual people driven to make everyone else as helpless as they are. who's more confused, those who think weapons are sexual organs, or those who want to take everyone's sexual organs away?." Clarissa Olson, a character in "The Probability Broach", L. Neil Smith, author.

"No one has ever raped a .38! " Paxton Quigley, a pre-eminent female self defense instructor.

"Make love, not war, but be prepared for both!" Anonymous

"God created all men. Colonel Colt made'em equal!" If you know, tell me!

"The only thing that can make a 110 lb woman the physical equal to a 220 lb man is 2 lbs of Hartford steel." Various forms heard, author unknown (Hartford, Connecticutt, home of Colt Firearms)

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry

"I know not what course Y'all might take, but as for me, Give me Liberty or Die, Mother@!$%#er DIE!!" Neale Osborn and A.X. Perez, November, 2010

"Take a gun with you on all your walks." Thomas Jefferson to his nephew (supplied by L.Neil Smith and Robertlyn Schultz)

The following is taken verbatim from "The Probability Broach", a novel by pre-eminent Libertarian author L. Neil Smith. Permission granted by author after a request by myself. Permission may be verified by e-mailing to Mr. Smith at

Neil Smith(lneil@netzero.com)

"Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220 pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110 pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong?" Also, Clarissa Olson to Lieutenant Win Bear, in said novel.

This is from the esteemed Mr. Smith, but NOT from any novel-

“Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable
individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and
carry, openly or concealed, any weapon — rifle, shotgun, handgun,
machinegun, _anything— — any time, any place, without asking anyone’s
permission.” The Atlanta Declaration of the Libertarian Party, written by L. Neil Smith. The author of this article is a signatory to same.

The following are from the comment section, but were so good I mved them up here verbatim- Originators unknown, but supplied by Mark in Wyoming;

I don’t carry a gun……..

…to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in this world.

I don’t carry a gun because I am evil. I carry a gun because I’ve lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose they were intended for a good long time to come.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because a real man knows how to take care and protect their property, themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing armed thugs I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

I don’t carry a gun to shoot to kill someone. I carry a gun and would shoot as necessary to stay alive. If the assailant dies as a result of a desire to harm me, it’s no loss to society

All the following is from a single work of L. Neil Smith;

"[I]f a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a
man - and you're not - what does his lack of trust tell you about his real
attitude toward women? If 'he' happens to be a woman, what makes her so
perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean
and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when
she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care
program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

"On the other hand - or the other party - should you believe anything
politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and
make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons?
What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and
ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other
countries?

"Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -
health care, international trade - all you have to do is use this X-ray
machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out
how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they
hate it."
L. Neil Smith, Sept, 1999, "Why did it have to be guns?"

"Since the criminals, being criminals, are NOT going to obey bans, therefore the law-abiding citizen MUST have the ability to fight fire with firepower." Neale Osborn, January 27, 2011.

The United States of America are in trouble. To some, it is a horrible surprise. Many others have helplessly watched it coming for years.

At the most fundamental levels, with regard to its continued national and cultural existence, in both economic and philosophical terms, this country is in vastly worse danger at this moment, than it was during the so-called Great Depression or the War Between the States.

No fewer than fifteen decades of federal government usurpation and mismanagement—culminating in the most openly rapacious and criminal administrations in its history—have brought the nation to this point. Of the ruling parties, the Democrats are arguably the worst offenders in this regard, relentlessly expanding the power and scope of government, invariably at the expense of the personal freedom and individual enterprise this country was supposed to have been all about.

On a discussion in another forum, it dawned on me that some people still think government is here to protect them. I think it strange that this delusion still exists, and thought I'd put together a checklist to help them distinguish true protection from a protection racket.

Let's start with a couple of examples

The United States of America are in trouble. To some, it is a horrible surprise. Many others have helplessly watched it coming for years.

At the most fundamental levels, with regard to its continued national and cultural existence, in both economic and philosophical terms, this country is in vastly worse danger at this moment, than it was during the so-called Great Depression or the War Between the States.

I am of course not for nationalized/socialized health-care in any form. What we need is a completely free market in health care. Costs would go down, the quality of treatment would go up, and we'd have more and better innovation.

Under socialized health care, there will always be shortages, which manifest themselves as rationing. Sarah Palin had the perfect description: "death panels." That's exactly what would happen.

Recently, the Supreme Court gave us Hoplophiles (gun people) a half-assed victory. They acknowledged that the 2nd Amendment is about an individual right, and applies to the states as well as the federal government. Of course, they failed to go far enough, but it is a start. Then Obama made his speech about illegal aliens, and that brought to my mind the HUGE divide between the races. These two un-related ideas then met an article about liquor stores, gun shops, and minority areas of town. It made me think about all the different ranges I've shot at over the last 46 years.

In Jersey, When I grew up in the late 60s and early 70s, my Pop and I would go to gravel pits or the dump to plink with .22 rifles. When cops stopped by, it was to shoot a few rounds with us, and make sure there was parental supervision. I lived 7 miles from one of the worst hit places for the race riots (Springwood Avenue, Asbury Park). Yet we often shot with blacks, Puerto Ricans, and a few Chinese. At the range, we were all just guys shooting together (not many women shot in that area, don't know why. My sisters were usually the only girls there.) We talked guns, life, money, politics, and more guns. If anyone had a problem with their weapo, we all stepped up to help fix it. If your shooting stunk, we all worked together to help figure out why, and fix it. I made friends from all three groups, some of whom I still talk to when I visit my parents.

Fast forward 10 years. I moved to Colorado. I lived for 2 years in Trinidad, Co, while attending gunsmithing school. #0 miles away was the NRA Whittington Center, their headquarters, and lots of different ranges to shoot. Two or three of the guys I went to school were about the most prejudiced guys out there, the other 60 or so were not. We all went to Raton (where the Whittington Center is located) to shoot, fairly often. While there, we would meet people from every walk of life. People of Mexican, Japanese, American Indian, India Indian, African, Chinese, even one of Eskimo descent were there shooting at different times. Often as members, and just as often as guests of members. Even the prejudiced @!$%#s from school treated the shooters as equals at the range. Was it out of fear? I don't think so. Most of the time, they said stupid things like "He might be a dumb Mex, but he's gun people, so he ain't too bad." I know, this doesn't sound good for gun people, but I think it is a sign that even idiots can be taught, and having something in comon with someone you think is inferior to you can teach you to grow up. Then, I moved north to Ft. Collins, where the prejudice was even less. And at the ranges there (notably the Weld County Gun Club), I NEVER met anyone who professed to dislike anyone on the basis of color or country of origin. Everyone there was just another gun nut, out for a fun day at the range. Note that due to the presence of CSU, a huge college campus, there was a huge number of people not just from around the country, but from around the world, who came to the rang to shoot.

Now, I live in Rural Steuben County, New York. I'm a member of a local range. And people of all colors shoot there. and they are just some more gun people. So here's my solution to several problems, all rolled up in one. I want all my fellow hoplophiles to invite a non-gunner to the range. If you know one who isn't of your particular skin tone, even better. Pistol, rifle, shotgun, bow and arrow, whatever the range, bring a person who normally doesn't shoot to shoot. Don't ask for ammo money the first visit (we ALL know they will mst likely want to come again, they can pay next trip), just teach them safety and the basics. If they are anti-gun, ask them to just come watch, and participate only if they decide to. Most will at least try. Once they do, they are usually hooked. The problems we can fix are these.

Anti-gun people are often hoplophobes (afraid of guns). Familiarity often removes most of the fear. Anti-gun people often think we are all just insular, unfriendly people. If they ever came to the range, they could meet the real gun people, the decent people who are just normal Americans just like them. And last, it would not only show that we are not just white, uptight, and far to the right men. We can show them that there are men, women and children. Depending on the area, there are people of every race, creed, and sexual persuasion. We can dispell the notion that most gun people are "Bitter Clingers", and instead we are just average Americans, just like them. So shoot safe, shoot often, and share your sport. It will pay off.

People tend to have mixed feelings about corporations. Just as it's said that "Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die," it's equally true that everybody wants a secure job with good pay and generous benefits, but nobody wants to spend their lives in a cubicle, or on an assembly line. Likewise, everybody wants inexpensive goods and services of a reliable, predictable quality, but nobody wants to surrender their freedom of personal choice or individual sovereignty.

Laugh if you want to. It is STILL true. Income tax is NOT a voluntary system, even though it is classified by the government as such. If it WAS voluntary, then WHY DO THEY JAIL TAX EVADERS??? Since it is NOT voluntary, and compulsory labor is slavery, hence illegal, TAXATION IS SLAVERY in my book. So, how about we fight it on those grounds? And why am I asking these questions? Well, I'll tell you the answers to these questions.

First off, I am NOT saying the government will ever agree, even if the Supreme Court were to rule me correct (FAT CHANCE THERE!!). They would never stop taxing us, they would never admit the truth of my assertions, and they would throw me in jail and throw away the key for even having the nerve to try (Dems and Reps both). This is NOT a partisan topic. No matter which of the two major parties, whether the moderates in the center, or the radical fringes on either end (politicians, not the voters) will ever vote for eliminating the income tax. They ay pay it lip service, propose a VAT, demand cuts of tax rates, or many other tricks to SEEM opposed to the income tax, but we all know they would never actually try to eliminate it.

But I think we could hammer it down their throats if we were all to refuse to pay them on the grounds that we refuse to be slaves to Washington. They can't jail us all! Of course, most people won't actually DO anything about it. They are all comfortable with their chains, even though they bitch of April 15th. Even though they bitch whenever DC decides to give aother few billion (or TRILLION) to some boondoggle. Most of you won't be willing to risk "Our Lives, Our Fortunes, and Our Sacred Honour" for mere freedom from slaves chains. Hell, with 4 kids, I'm not sure I'D do it. But I'd sure love to try!

I'm sure someone will bring up "Well, what services are YOU, Neale, willing to give up?" And I'm sure that no matter what services I say, there will be the inevitable comeback of "Oh, so you don't want ........ either?" I'll save you the time. With the exception of healthcare for veterans injured in the line of duty PRIOR to the implementation of the ending of taxation, and the elimination of SSI for all except those already on it or within 10 years of 65, the answer is I'll live with it privatized, or run for profit. Yes, cops. Yes, fire. Yes, emt service. YES,YES,YES.

Now, to the why. I'm sick of being a slave. Slaves MUST co-operate with their owners. If they don't, they either break free or die. Well, I'm tired of co-operating, and I wonder if any of you are, too. Well, are you?

I didn't hear it myself, but I've been told that radio talk show host Glenn Beck was whimpering the other day about the way firearms have been brought into discussion of the way that Barack Obama and his goblin hordes have attempted to impose socialism on the people of this country

Imagine a lonely kid, undersized and overbright, living on an American air base overseas. Comic books taught him to read years before he started school and he'd tackle anything that fell open under his eyes. Anything about science or space travel leaped off the page as if printed in boldfaced italic. A neighbor's medical texts had such delightfully disgusting diseases you could practice having, and radio magazines ... in those days radios had vacuum-filled glass cylinders, see, and—radio? You know, TV blind people?

Over the past couple of weeks, I have listened to dozens of hours of talk radio, most of it focused on the effort to impose, by force, a collectivized medical system on what is clearly no longer a free people.

During all that time, plenty has been said about a wide range of related topics. Those I listen to are by no means monolithic in their views, but vary on details of policy, philosophy, personality, and attitude. Sometimes they differ to a startling degree, considering that the majority of them started out, more or less, as conservative Republicans.