Money Quotes Galore!

Don’t Vote

There are 16 3rd Party candidates on the Colorado ballot for POTUS. I am so sick of it all. I can’t stomach a vote for a candidate that is morally, ethically, economically, and politically bankrupt.

I am going to go to the polls and cast my vote on the myriad of local issues that will affect my city, county, and state. But I am not going to cast a vote for POTUS.

How does voting change the situation? Neither of the candidates for president wants to do anything about the problem. On the contrary, they want to make it worse. This is for a reason. The state owns the “democratic process” as surely as it owns the Departments of Labor and Defense and uses it in ways that benefit the state and no one else.

On the other hand, we do have the freedom not to vote. No one has yet drafted us into the voting booth. I suggest that we exercise this right not to participate. It is one of the few rights we have left. Nonparticipation sends a message that we no longer believe in the racket they have cooked up for us, and we want no part of it.

From an interesting little article by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Amendment 48 Redux

See, I am not the only one that thinks this:

Archbishop Chaput and Bishop Conley also clarified their approach to Amendment 48, saying it has been “a source of confusion for many Catholics and other members of the Colorado prolife community.”[It is a source of confusion only to the Bishops. To pro-lifers it represents legal recognition of personhood at conception. To refuse to support this is inexcusable.]

The bishops said Catholics are free to support or oppose the amendment, calling it a “prudential matter,” adding that the bishops “do not support” the proposal. [Defending life through the voting process is never a prudential matter. Chaput JUST called out the governor for claiming Catholics do not hold a fertilized egg to be a person. But when legislation is proposed, legally defining this very thing (!), the Bishop refuses to support it.]

They noted that the Colorado Catholic Conference had previously outlined “problems with its strategy,” referencing a June 5 letter from Colorado’s bishops which argued the amendment “does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or even reducing abortions in Colorado.” The bishops worried the Supreme Court would not hear any legal case concerning the amendment or could even reaffirm the pro-abortion rights jurisprudence of Roe v. Wade.[Can they divine the future? So we shouldn't pass legislation defining personhood starting at conception because these Bishops think it won't succeed? So we shouldn't even try? A bill should be supported if it is good and upholds the truth. This one does. Yet the Bishops risk torpedoing it, because they disagree with the strategy? Unbelievable.]

“Catholics are not required by Church teaching to support Amendment 48. But they are required to respect the personhood of the developing child from life’s earliest beginning,” Archbishop Chaput and Bishop Conley said in their Wednesday statement. [By NOT voting for Amendment 48, they are, in fact, failing to respect the personhood of the child. Catholics always have an obligation to vote for life in every capacity possible.]

“In that light, Governor Bill Ritter seriously confused the Amendment 48 debate.” [No, your excellencies. You have.]

(from Veritas Vincit)

The Rational Ignorance Remix

Steve posted a video full of celebs spewing their voting-speak.

Here is what real people think:

Hitler Youth

This is just some scary effing shite.

What exactly are we gonna change? Exactly.

(h/t Hilary – the wannabe Italian Stallion)

This now contains a corrected link to the video. The previous version was listed by YouTube as:

This is a private video. If you have been sent this video, please make sure you accept the sender’s friend request.

God Bless Our Two-Party System

These Are My Choices?

Ron Paul Announces Presidential Pick

A New Alliance – By Dr. Ron Paul

Friends – please read this new and important piece by Dr. Paul.

The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose.  It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process.  It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo.  There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies.  The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored.  The quotes I used at the press conference from insider Carroll Quigley and the League of Women voters strongly support this contention.

Calling together candidates from the liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive constituencies, who are all opposed to this rigged process, was designed to alert the American people to the uselessness of continuing to support a process that a claims that one’s only choice is to choose the lesser of two evils and reject a principle vote that might challenge the status quo as a wasted vote.

In both political education and organization, coalitions are worthwhile and necessary to have an impact.  “Talking to the choir” alone achieves little.  I have always approached political and economic education with a “missionary” zeal by inviting any group in on issues we agree upon.

This opens the door to legitimate discourse with the hope of winning new converts to the cause of liberty.  This strategy led to the press conference with the four candidates agreeing to the four principles we believe are crucial in challenging the political system that has evolved over many years in this country.

This unique press conference, despite the surprising, late complication from the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, hopefully will prove to be historically significant.

This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree. In the meantime, why can’t we be friends, respectful of each other, and fight the corrupt process from which we suffer, and at the same time champion the four issues that we all agree upon which the two major candidates won’t address?

Many practical benefits can come from this unique alliance.  Our cause is liberty —freedom is popular and is the banner that brings people together. Since authoritarianism divides, we always have the edge in an intellectual fight.  Once it’s realized that the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity are best achieved with our views, I’m convinced we win by working with others.  Those who don’t want to collaborate are insecure with their own beliefs.

In the past two years at the many rallies where I talked and shook hands with literally thousands of people, I frequently asked them what brought them to our campaign.  There were many answers: the Constitution, my consistency, views on the Federal Reserve, the war, and civil liberties.  The crowds were overwhelmingly made up of young people.

Oftentimes I welcomed the diverse groups that came, mentioning that the crowd was made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives with each group applauding.  Even jokingly, I recognized the “anarchists” and that, too, was met with some applause.  In conversations, many admitted to having been Democrats and members of the Green Party and supporters of Ralph Nader, yet they came to agree with us on all the issues once the entire philosophy was understood.  That’s progress.

Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits. Liberals and progressives are willing to align themselves with us on the key issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve.  That’s exciting and very encouraging, and it means we are making progress.  The big challenge, however, is taking on the establishment, and the process that is so well entrenched.  But we can’t beat the entrenched elite without the alliance of all those who have been disenfranchised.

Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions.  They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons.  Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge.  The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.

Although we were on the receiving end of ridicule in the reporting of the press conference, I personally was quite satisfied with the results. True revolutions are not won in a week, a month, or even a year.  They take time.  But we are making progress, and the momentum remains and is picking up.  The Campaign for Liberty is alive and well, and its growth and influence will continue.  Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating.  He stated that his support for the four points remains firm.  His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me.  To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.

Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance.  I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end.  Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined.  And I’m convinced they are.  That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November.   It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members.  I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman.  It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party.  Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well.  The more votes they get, the better.  I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York.  This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats.  We need more states to permit this option.  This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election.  I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

Republicans: The Party That Should Have Known Better

River Cities’ Reader – Republicans: The Party That Should Have Known Better.

Very interesting perspective on where the RNC has stood in the past and where they stand now. In the meantime, the solution is publicly vilified and mocked.

Ron Paul Statement to the National Press Club

The American Majority

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.

Carroll Quigley – Author of Tragedy & Hope

The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party’s candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties.

The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.

This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a “wasted” vote. It’s time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one’s vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard.

We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the American world empire. There will be no emphasis in protecting privacy and civil liberties and the constant surveillance of the American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to curtail the rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationship with big banks and international corporations and the politicians.

There is only one way that these issues can get the attention they deserve: the silent majority must become the vocal majority.

This message can be sent to our leaders by not participating in the Great Distraction—the quadrennial campaign and election of an American President without a choice. Just think of how much of an edge a Vice President has in this process, and he or she is picked by a single person—the party’s nominee. This was never intended by the Constitution.

Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess.

Write-in votes should not be discouraged, but the electoral officials must be held accountable and make sure the votes are counted. But one must not be naïve and believe that under today’s circumstances one has a chance of accomplishing much by a write-in campaign.

The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)

Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo—those special interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That can’t be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.

For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.

A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we’ve had enough and want real change than wasting one’s vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.

The Palin Temptation

Me for President 2008

Stinking WordPress.

Check out my video.

10,000 Years

Why are we voting for this guy again?

Well, I’m not voting for him. This video is just the tip of the iceberg for me.

We the People 2.0

More on the Colorado Personhood Amendment

In another posting, I lamented the fact that the Catholic Bishops refuse to take a stand publicly on the Colorado Personhood Amendment, which will go before the voters of Colorado on the November 4 ballot as Amendment 48.

The Amendment itself is simple:

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is
amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
Section 31. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of
Article II of the state constitution, the terms “person” or “persons”
shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.

This Amendment has far-reaching implications, for SCOTUS Justice Harry Blackmun himself stated in Roe v. Wade,

If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.

However, at present, the Colorado Catholic Bishops have refused to support the Amendment publicly. By way of the Respect Life Meeting for the Diocese of Colorado Springs, the general consensus is that the Amendment itself is a huge step, which will be fiercely opposed by the likes of Planned Parenthood. Colorado law only allows an Amendment to be on the ballot every so-many years. And since the Bishops and the Colorado Catholic Conference are not confident that the Amendment can pass, they do not want to give their full support (spiritually and financially). The chance of losing the battle and not having a chance to bring it up again for so-many years was too much for them to support at this time (since we don’t have the money to fight it).

Rather, the Respect Life Office sees the [soon-to-fail] Amendment as an opportunity to educate the public about birth control, how it can act as an abortifacient, and how it damages the female body.

The crux of the matter is that the Amendment is on the ballot. All Catholics in the state of Colorado should actively support this proposition, whether through monetary donations, social activism, or ardent prayer.

The entire nation recognizes that Colorado (along with Minnesota and Georgia, who have similar ballot measures) have a unique opportunity to turn the tide in the current battlegrounds for Life.

Yeah, McCain’s a Good Choice …

“But Monday, McCain adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin, speaking for the campaign, … and for the first time cast McCain’s views on warrantless wiretapping as identical to Bush’s.”

We do not know what lies ahead in our nation’s fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.

“It [Article II] refers to President Bush’s longstanding arguments that the president has nearly unlimited powers during a time of war. The administration’s analysis went so far as to say the Fourth Amendment did not apply inside the United States in the fight against terrorism, in one legal opinion from 2001.”

Read more here.

Huckabee is not the Catholic Choice

Despite my initial support for Mike Huckabee, he is turning out to be a bad choice. I have been keeping abreast of Ron Paul via Catholics for Ron Paul. He seems like the best choice at this point.

See Steve’s site for a more in-depth discussion.

Here is an interesting article regarding Huckabee’s choice of campaign platforms:

Mike Huckabee to speak at strongly anti-Catholic preacher’s church (John Hagee)