Please bear wiith Us here; we're in process of developing this site, from a ZERO knowledge basis a week ago (Sunday, 29 Apr.07) and will have several points of interest here as soon as technical prowess is sufficient to get it done - hopefully, by Mid-week. Thanks Much, Hal

Recent e-mails & other crucial items:  [Blogging]

WHY? ... Ron Paul !!!   

 Debates  [1st]

Key GOP Group Endorses Ron Paul   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 22, 2007 ARLINGTON, VA – The United Republicans of California (UROC) have unanimously endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for president of the United States. UROC, formed in 1963 to support Barry Goldwater, represents the traditional conservative wing of the California Republican Party. "The unanimous endorsement from the United Republicans of California proves what the campaign has been saying all along," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul is the only true conservative and real Republican in the race." In their official statement endorsing Dr. Paul, UROC called him "the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital" and recognized that: Ron Paul's voting record demonstrates that he has voted against: · raising taxes; · unbalanced budgets; · a federal restriction on gun ownership; · raising congressional pay; or · increasing the power of the executive branch. His voting record demonstrates further that he voted against: · the USA Patriot Act; · regulating the Internet; and · the war in Iraq. Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a record that matches the UROC’s platform. "Whether the issue is life, the Second Amendment, foreign policy, spending or taxes, Ron Paul is the only traditional conservative candidate," continued Snyder. "Traditional conservatives across the country should support Ron Paul for president." -30- http://www.ronpaul2008.com

For all of one’s doubts about NEED and/or CONSCIENTIOUS EFFECT of the “Write-in Vote” – particularly, regarding its IMPORT to Our present dilemma:

PLEASE read THE WHOLE of President George Washington’s Farewell Address to the Nation ( http://wilstar.com/holidays/farewell.htm ) with particular notice given “Partisan Politics” as a prime element of what President Washington called “organized faction” and “factious” efforts, throughout the address, as in this sample paragraph, … e.g.:

“All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency.  They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the illconcerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils, and modified by mutual interests.” [emphasis added.]

… Could President Washington have been “a Prophet” TOO!!! … Or was he more likely stressing one of the plethora of lesson’s gained from the very causes of the Revolution ITSELF - which WE the People have obviously long-since forgotten?

Please!!! ... STAY in-touch HERE, and REMEMBER!!!

In November, 2008:

... You can SELECT "Democratic" for Liberal CFR

or

... You can SELECT "Republican" for Conservative CFR

or

... You CAN VOTE for TRUE Rule of Law,

 Constitutional United States Governance !!!

Simply Write-in:

Ron Paul - President

CLEARLY!!! … It’s time we give TOTAL consideration to that “Political Party”, WHICH CAN ONLY control Our “Write-in Vote” – the Human soul, "American Citizen Party":

YOU!!!!

God Bless.

YoPalHal

Defeat the Media Clones

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

           
DIGG THIS

So how does the Establishment deal with a Ron Paul candidacy? What else did you expect? By ignoring him as much as possible.

The Reuters headline following the May 3 GOP debate: "2008 Republicans back war."

All right, you say, perhaps that’s just a crude summary. A headline can’t say everything, after all, and the article itself will surely disambiguate the candidates. It’s certainly newsworthy that a nine-term Republican congressman had been a fierce opponent of the war from the beginning, and made his antiwar position clear time and again during the debate. Naturally this will get some play.

But not even a hint of that in the Reuters article by John Whitesides. I mean, hey, didn’t you read the headline? The 2008 Republicans back war!

Here’s the entire coverage of Ron Paul: "Also participating were Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, Reps. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Ron Paul of Texas, and Duncan Hunter of California."

Well, that’s just a smash-up job there, Mr. Whitesides.

That wasn’t an isolated case. On the Liberty and Power blog, David Beito reports: "Later that night, CNN's post-debate spin segment sank to an even greater low. The panel included Arianna Huffington and some neo-con guy from The Weekly Standard. Nobody mentioned Paul's views. The ever-insufferable Huffington, who either did not watch the debate or lied about what she saw, self-righteously proclaimed that all of the ten candidates supported the war. Nobody challenged her. Are we to be spared nothing?"

The creepy Dick Morris is in a category all his own. First, he declared John McCain the winner. Now anyone who watched the debate had to be wondering if McCain’s, well, weirdness was meant for laughs. At the same time, you almost had to admire how he could be at once stilted and robotic, and yet also crazed and menacing.

But back to our subject: Morris ignored Paul altogether. Now he managed to find time to mention Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson – heck, he mentioned every other candidate besides Ron Paul, even listing specific winners and losers. Since a candidate like Ron Paul isn’t allowed to exist in Dick Morris’ world, he apparently couldn’t win or lose.

Now we have the phenomenon of Yahoo News inexplicably excluding Ron Paul from its list of GOP candidates. Yet right there are Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter, whose combined support in the polls trails Ron Paul’s.

Stunned, I actually called Yahoo and left a voicemail message for their chief communications officer, and included my email address. In their emailed reply, I was told: "According to the latest FEC filings, it is our understanding that Congressman Paul has not officially entered the 2008 Presidential race, but has only gotten to the stage of forming an exploratory committee."

Huh? Unannounced candidates are allowed into the debates? Can't possibly be true, I thought. So I simply went to the Federal Election Commission website, and after three seconds of searching I found Ron Paul's filing statement, dated March 12. (That's funny: I was told Yahoo had consulted "the latest FEC filings.") Well, here are Ron Paul's documents right here.

To Yahoo's credit, after I sent them this documentation I was told that they would have a page for Ron Paul up within a week.

But apparently it's going to take persistence and vigilance to ensure that Paul is treated fairly. As of yesterday, for example, ABC News began deleting and banning posts about Ron Paul, as well as posts complaining about this deletion policy. See this article.

Since that post was written, ABC has begun blocking all comments about Ron Paul.

The same media establishment that bought the Iraq propaganda package and then claimed to be oh-so-sorry is now trying to keep out of the limelight the one presidential contender who has actually bucked the establishment and does something other than parrot government/media slogans. But that’s what the mainstream media’s purpose is: to define the nature of our political debate and make sure no fundamental questions are ever raised.

No, I don’t mean that the heads of these organizations held a special meeting and after exchanging the secret handshake pledged to keep mum about Paul. My point is that no such meeting is necessary. As shills for the establishment, they think alike on everything that matters. While marginal debate is to be permitted here and there, truly independent voices are to be demonized, drowned out, or, better yet, ignored altogether. (Ask Amy Goodman of the left’s Democracy Now! program why she doesn’t close up shop and just let ABC and Fox give us our news.) The media establishment likes the status quo just the way it is.

This is all the more reason for people interested in Ron Paul to talk about him, write about him, and light up the Internet about him. (I wrote this piece as a quick intro to Paul so people could quickly and easily show their friends what made him so unusual and admirable.) Not only will you serve the cause of genuine political debate in this country – if we wind up with Rudy and Hillary, what on earth will they have to debate about? – but you’ll also tick off the race of clones who give us only the news they think we need. That’s reward enough, isn’t it?

May 10, 2007

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [view his website; send him mail] is senior fellow in American history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. His books include How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (get a free chapter here), The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (first-place winner in the 2006 Templeton Enterprise Awards), and the New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

Copyright © 2007 Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

The DC Gun Ban

March 12,  2007 

Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2^nd Amendment rights in the nation's capital.  It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia 's nonsensical argument that the 2^nd Amendment confers only a "collective right," something gun control advocates have asserted for years. 

Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1 ^st, 4^th, and 5^th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers.  Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees.   But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups.   Rights, by definition, are individual.  "Group rights" is an oxymoron.

Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed?   Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King's soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them.

In the 1700s, militias were local groups made up of ordinary citizens.   They were not under federal control!  As a practical matter, many of them were barely under the control of colonial or state authorities.   When the 2^nd Amendment speaks of a "well-regulated militia," it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities.  They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so. 

The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed.   In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army.  

Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe-- as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book "More Guns, Less Crime," scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control--like Washington DC--experience higher rates of murder and violent crime.  It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capital, where the individual's right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed.

Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood.   The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises.  People's lives and safety are at stake.

Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.

- - 0 - -