Good Americans Distrust Government—And they are the Majority

“Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant or a fearful master.” George Washington (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I postulate that being a good American means living in harmony with the spirit of The Constitution of the United States.  If that’s true, should we ever trust government?

Absolutely not.

The reason we have three, separate and independent branches of government (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) is to keep those governmental branches fighting among themselves and thereby prevent the emergence of a single, dictatorial government that worked for its own interests rather than those of the people.  The mandate for three branches of government (separation of powers) is evidence that the Founders didn’t trust the federal government.

The reason we have “checks and balances” in the Constitution is to protect the people from the federal government.  The Founders didn’t trust the feds.

The reason we have the 1^st Amendment right to free speech is to allow us to expose government corruption.

According to the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights,” the reason we have the entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) is to prevent “misconstruction or abuse” of the powers granted under the Constitution to the officers, officials and employees of the federal government.

Insofar as the Constitution was intended to allow for only a “limited” government, that Constitution was intended to protect against government’s inevitable and insatiable appetite for more power, more taxes and less freedom.  The Founders didn’t trust the federal government.

 

Ron Paul Lawyers Suing GOP for Violation of Voting Rights

Ron Paul (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Ron Paul’s candidacy for the Republican nomination for President appears to be over.  Some may hope that Paul’s campaign will be resurrected, but given Rand Paul’s endorsement of of Mr. Romney, it appears that that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee.

Nevertheless, here’s a video describing litigation that’s been proposed by lawyers supporting Ron Paul.  The video implies that Ron Paul was not defeated by Mitt Romney so much as by inner workings of the “establishment” within the Republican Party.

I assume the lawsuit was devised a month ago (or more) while Ron Paul’s candidacy was still a live issue.  However, after Romney’s apparent victory, it’s unclear whether a lawsuit on Paul’s behalf will go forward.  Still, if there’s any hope that Paul’s candidacy can be revived, this lawsuit may be Paul’s last chance.  And it’s got to go forward quickly–before this year’s Republican convention on August 27th to 30th.

 

Will the U.S. Support Israel or Fiat Dollars?

Image via Wikipedia

Two days from now, (September 20^th), Palestine is expected to ask the UN Security Council to recognize it as a legitimate “state”.  If such recognition is granted, it will mark a significant political defeat for Israel.  The only obstacle to Palestinian recognition by the UN, is a veto by the United States.

If the US vetoes the Palestinian request for recognition, it will delight Israel, but infuriate the Muslim world.  That’s not news.  US support for Israel has infuriated Muslims for over half a century.

But this time, there may be a new consideration:  If the US gov-co vetoes the Palestinian request for recognition as a nation-state, the resultant Muslim fury could cause a serious decline (or even collapse) in the value of the fiat dollar.

If so, the gov-co’s decision on whether to veto Palestinian statehood is a mutually-exclusive choice between: 1) supporting Israel; and 2) supporting the fiat dollar.

We can’t do both.  If we support Israel, the value of the fiat dollar may be hugely diminished.  If we support the fiat dollar, the security of Israel may be hugely diminished.

If gov-co is forced to choose between supporting Israel and supporting the fiat dollar, what choice will it make?

 

“the United States of NORTH America”

Image via Wikipedia

In A.D. 1795, our government ratified a treaty with the nation of Algiers. One of the two signatories to to that treaty was Algiers; the other was “the United States of North America”. The phrase “the United States of North America” appears roughly 20 times in that treaty.

Thus, it appears that in A.D. 1795—seven years after ratification of the Constitution of the United States—either:

1) at least with respect to international treaties, the proper name for our national government may have been “the United States of North America”;

2) no one, including George Washington, had yet agreed on a proper name for this country; or,

3) “the United States of North America” has subsequently been supplanted by the “United States”.

 

Mainstream Media Shuns Ron Paul

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr

I doubt that any single individual has done more to change America’s political landscape in the past 20 years than 12-term Congressman Ron Paul.  His persistence has moved the Republican Party rank and file (not the leaders, of course)–and the People of The United States of America–towards a greater appreciation, and even demand, for liberty and limited government.

Although he virtually tied Michele Bachmann in the Ames, Iowa “straw poll,” he’s been largely ignored by mainstream media as “unelectable“.  But “unelectable” is merely code for “Challenges the Powers-That-Be“.

 

No Law Against “Insider Trading” for Congressmen

Image via Wikipedia

This video will piss you off.  It’s sharp, brilliant, concise.  Less than 4 minutes.

Congressmen get rich–BIG TIME–while the USA burns.  Hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mind-blowing.

Congress may have passed laws to allow them to commit insider trading, but I wonder if there are similar laws to allow them to commit treason.  Could insider trading by Congress be construed to be treason (levying war against the several “United States” or giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the States of the Union)?

I’ve said for years that Congress and the Senate are nothing but a bunch of treasonous whores for sale to the highest bidder.  This video pretty much proves that contention.  The bastards need to be indicted.  All of ‘em.

video   00:03:45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G96TY5JsV-s

Here’s a subsequent video by 60 Minutes on the same subject:

video  00:15:20

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388130n&tag=re1.fb

 

Satanic Spin on Republican Logo?

Image via Wikipedia

Yes, yes–I know that the title to this article smacks of sensationalism and an author with an 8th-grade education combined with a Bible-Belt upbringing.

But the following video makes a very interesting, perhaps “sensational” point.  The modern logo for the Republican Party is a simplistic and stylized image of an elephant divided into a blue top half and a red bottom half, and decorated with three white stars.  The three white stars have five points (just like the stars on the American flag).

Originally, those three stars were reportedly orientated so that the “center” point on each star pointed straight up and the opposite two points pointed downward (just like the American flag).

As the video explains, the sign of Satan is also a five-pointed start–but it’s orientated so the one “center” point points downward and the two opposing points point upward.

 

Ron Paul’s Speech at CPAC 2011

Image via Wikipedia

Ron Paul recently spoke at the Conserverative Political Action Conference.

Powerful. Makes me smile.  Liberty is in the air.  The Egyptian revolution might spread to Jordon, Saudi Arabia, and maybe, even the United States of America.

Listen to the crowd’s reaction.  The man is a rock star.  If the next presidential election were held today, Congressman Paul would win in a walk.

I’m not sure that Paul will be willing to run for the presidency in A.D. 2012.  He might be getting a little too old for the kind of abuse that a presidential contest entails.  But his speech at CPAC sure sounds like the opening shot for anther run at the White House.

I’m  thinking about “Paul-Palin in A.D. 2012.”  Ron Paul for President.  Sarah Palin for VP.  What a ticket, hmm?

video  00:21:04

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM8d_Arjz6g

 

After Mubarack

Image via Wikipedia

The current Egyptian demonstrations cum revolt were started by “secular” Muslims–young men (under age 30) who were described as “over-educated” and “under-employed”.  Theses young dissidents were not motivated to overthrow Egyptian President Hosni Mubarack by their Muslim faith.  Instead, the “secularists” were motivated by economic issues–jobs, income, standard of living, etc.

Later, the Muslim Brotherhood and other “radical” Muslims joined in the protests and what will probably become a revolution.

 

Notes on “Territory” and “People”

Image via Wikipedia

It appears to me (and others) that the States of the Union (“The States”) may have been rendered insolvent and non-functional when the federal government removed gold (A.D. 1933) and silver (A.D. 1968) from domestic circulation.

Article 1.10.1 of The Constitution of the United States declares that “No State [of the Union] shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”  Note that this prohibition applies only to States of the Union–not to territories and/or the federal government.  How can the governments of the States of the Union continue to function constitutionally if there’s no gold or silver in circulation with which to pay debts or collect fines and fess?

Thus, it appears possible that the governments of the States of the Union could have been virtually destroyed by simply removing gold and silver coin from domestic circulation.  Which is exactly what the federal government has done.