The Man Who Should Succeed Ron Paul

Anyone who has been reading my columns for any length time knows that I am a staunch supporter (and, yes, friend) of Texas Congressman Ron Paul. I have written previously on why I believe Dr. Paul is the man that should be elected President of the United States in 2012. I’ve devoted several columns to promoting Ron Paul’s Presidential candidacy. Here was my latest.

I am also on record as saying I believe that historians will recognize Ron Paul as being the greatest US Congressman in American history. Rep. Paul has been the voice of constitutional government and liberty on Capitol Hill for nearly two and a half decades. No one in Washington, D.C., has even come close to his leadership and courage.

That said, the disconcerting element of the 2012 elections is that Dr. Paul has already made the announcement that he will not seek reelection to the US House of Representatives. That means, if Ron is not elected President, the American people will not have his voice in Washington, D.C., for the first time in over a generation. That thought is extremely troubling. Who would be the man to whom the mantle of constitutional leadership could be passed? The answer: the man who is running for Dr. Paul’s congressional seat, Steve Stockman. Like Ron Paul, Steve is a personal friend of mine, and, also like Ron Paul, Steve is a solid, courageous champion of constitutional government and liberty. How fitting it would be that a great man such as Steve Stockman would be elected to succeed the greatest congressman in US history.

Steve was first elected to the US House of Representatives back in that great freshman class of 1994 when a host of notable conservatives were swept into Congress, including people such as the late great Helen Chenoweth-Hage, the late Sonny Bono, Steve Largent, Joe Scarborough, Bob Barr, J.C. Watts, et al.

Steve is solidly on the right side of religious liberty issues, Second Amendment issues, life issues, illegal immigration issues, taxes and economics issues, the emerging police state issues, foreign interventionism issues, etc. In short, Steve Stockman is pro-Constitution, pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Americanism, and pro-liberty. He is anti-illegal immigration, anti-Big Government, anti-police state, and anti-warfare state. He is solid everywhere that Ron Paul is solid.

With this background, I am honored that Steve would invite me to speak at his “Conservative Action Conference” to be held this Saturday, April 28, 2012, at the Pasadena Convention Center and Municipal Fairgrounds just outside Houston, Texas. The rally starts at 9am Central time. I will be joining notable speakers such as Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Congressman Bob McEwen, and several others.

To get more information on this great rally, click here.

If you live within driving distance of the Houston, Texas, area, I invite you to attend this terrific conference. And I also hope that you will come introduce yourself to me while you are there.

As you can imagine, big-government toadies are salivating at the opportunity to put one of their big-government cronies in Ron Paul’s House seat. Dr. Paul has been a thorn in their side for over two decades. Every American who loves freedom, who believes in constitutional government, and who admires and appreciates Ron Paul needs to support Steve Stockman in every way that they can–including with their financial contributions.

To donate to Steve’s campaign or to learn more about his candidacy, click here.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is no hyperbole to say that our liberties are under intense attack. We simply no longer have the luxury of sitting back and letting somebody else fight for our freedoms. Not all of us can run for elected office, of course. But all of us can and should support those liberty-minded patriots who are running for elected office. Steve Stockman is one of these patriots. I am honored to join him for his “Conservative Action Conference” this Saturday near Houston, Texas. And I’m asking you to do anything you can to help Steve, whether you live in Texas or not. Ron Paul spoke for all of us who believe in freedom and constitutional government on Capitol Hill. Steve Stockman will do the same!

The Man Who Fired The Shot Heard ’Round The World

April 19, 1775, should be regarded as important a date to Americans as July 4, 1776. It’s a shame that we don’t celebrate it as enthusiastically as we do Independence Day. It’s even more shameful that many Americans don’t even remember what happened on this day back in 1775. For the record, historians call this day, “Patriot’s Day.” More specifically, it was the day that the shot was fired that was heard ’round the world. It was the day America’s War for Independence began.

Being warned of approaching British troops by Dr. Joseph Warren, Pastor Jonas Clark and his male congregants of the Church of Lexington (numbering 60-70) were the ones that stood with their muskets in front of the Crown’s troops (numbering over 800), who were on orders to seize a cache of arms which were stored at Concord and to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock (who were known to be in the area, and who had actually taken refuge in Pastor Clark’s home).

According to eyewitnesses, the king’s troops opened fire on the militiamen almost without warning, immediately killing eight of Pastor Clark’s parishioners. In self defense, the Minutemen returned fire. These were the first shots of the Revolutionary War. This took place on Lexington Green, which was located directly beside the church-house where those men worshipped each Sunday. Adams and Hancock were not taken. They owed their lives to Pastor Clark and his brave Minutemen–albeit eight of those men gave their lives protecting Adams and Hancock.

According to Pastor Clark, these are the names of the eight men who died on Lexington Green: Robert Munroe, Jonas Parker, Samuel Hadley, Jonathan Harrington, Jr., Isaac Muzzy, Caleb Harrington, and John Brown, all of Lexington, and one Mr. Porter of Woburn.

By the time the British troops arrived at the Concord Bridge, hundreds of colonists had amassed a defense of the bridge. A horrific battle took place, and the British troops were routed and soon retreated back to Boston. America’s War for Independence had begun!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, these two elements of American history are lost to the vast majority of historians today: 1) it was attempted gun confiscation by the British troops that ignited America’s War for Independence, and 2) it was a pastor and his flock that mostly comprised the “Minutemen” who fired the shots that started our great Revolution.

With that thought in mind, I want to devote today’s column to honoring the brave preachers of Colonial America–these “children of the Pilgrims,” as one Colonial pastor’s descendent put it.

It really wasn’t that long ago. However, with the way America’s clergymen act today, one would think that preachers such as James Caldwell, John Peter Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, and Jonas Clark never existed. But they did exist; and without them, this country we call the United States of America that would not exist.

Caldwell was a Presbyterian; Muhlenberg was a Lutheran; Houghton was a Baptist; and no one really seems to know what denomination (if any) Jonas Clark claimed, although one historian referred to Clark as a Trinitarian and a Calvinist. But these men had one thing in common (besides their faith in Jesus Christ): they were all ardent patriots who participated in America’s War for Independence, and in the case of Jonas Clark, actually ignited it.

James Caldwell

James Caldwell was called “The Rebel High Priest” or “The Fighting Chaplain.” Caldwell is most famous for the “Give ’em Watts!” story.

During the Springfield (New Jersey) engagement, the colonial militia ran out of wadding for their muskets. Quickly, Caldwell galloped to the Presbyterian church, and returning with an armload of hymnals, threw them to the ground, and hollered, “Now, boys, give ’em Watts!” He was referring to the famous hymn writer, Isaac Watts, of course.

The British hated Caldwell so much, they murdered his wife, Hannah, in her own home, as she sat with her children on her bed. Later, a fellow American was bribed by the British to assassinate Pastor Caldwell–which is exactly what he did. Americans loyal to the Crown burned both his house and church. No less than three cities and two public schools in the State of New Jersey bear his name.

John Peter Muhlenberg

John Peter Muhlenberg was pastor of a Lutheran church in Woodstock, Virginia, when hostilities erupted between Great Britain and the American colonies. When news of Bunker Hill reached Virginia, Muhlenberg preached a sermon from Ecclesiastes 3 to his congregation He reminded his parishioners that there was a time to preach and a time to fight. He said that, for him, the time to preach was past and it was time to fight. He then threw off his vestments and stood before his congregants in the uniform of a Virginia colonel.

Muhlenberg later was promoted to brigadier-general in the Continental Army, and later, major general. He participated in the battles of Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, and Yorktown. He went on to serve in both the US House of Representatives and US Senate.

Joab Houghton

Joab Houghton was in the Hopewell (New Jersey) Baptist Meeting House at worship when he received the first information regarding the battles at Lexington and Concord. His great-grandson gives the following eloquent description of the way he treated the tidings:

“[M]ounting the great stone block in front of the meeting-house, he beckoned the people to stop. Men and women paused to hear, curious to know what so unusual a sequel to the service of the day could mean. At the first, words a silence, stern as death, fell over all. The Sabbath quiet of the hour and of the place was deepened into a terrible solemnity. He told them all the story of the cowardly murder at Lexington by the royal troops; the heroic vengeance following hard upon it; the retreat of Percy; the gathering of the children of the Pilgrims round the beleaguered hills of Boston; then pausing, and looking over the silent throng, he said slowly, ‘Men of New Jersey, the red coats are murdering our brethren of New England! Who follows me to Boston?’ And every man in that audience stepped out of line, and answered, ‘I!’ There was not a coward or a traitor in old Hopewell Baptist Meeting-House that day.” (Cathcart, William. Baptists and the American Revolution. Philadelphia: S.A. George, 1876, rev. 1976. Print.)

Jonas Clark

As I said at the beginning of this column, Jonas Clark was pastor of the Church of Lexington, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775, the day that British troops marched on Concord with orders to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock, and to seize a cache of firearms. It was Pastor Clark’s male congregants who were the first ones to face-off against the British troops as they marched through Lexington. When you hear the story of the Minutemen at the Battle of Lexington, remember those Minutemen were Pastor Jonas Clark and the men of his congregation.

On the One Year Anniversary of the Battle of Lexington, Clark preached a sermon based upon his eyewitness testimony of the event. He called his sermon, “The Fate of Blood-Thirsty Oppressors and God’s Tender Care of His Distressed People.” His sermon has been republished by Nordskog Publishing under the title, “The Battle of Lexington, A Sermon and Eyewitness Narrative, Jonas Clark, Pastor, Church of Lexington.”

Order the book containing Clark’s sermon at:

Of course, these four brave preachers were not the only ones to participate in America’s fight for independence. There were Episcopalian ministers such as Dr. Samuel Provost of New York, Dr. John Croes of New Jersey, and Robert Smith of South Carolina. Presbyterian ministers such as Adam Boyd of North Carolina and James Armstrong of Maryland, along with many others, also took part.

So many Baptist preachers participated in America’s War for Independence that, at the conclusion of the war, President George Washington wrote a personal letter to the Baptist people saying, “I recollect with satisfaction that the religious societies of which you are a member have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously, the firm friends to civil liberty, and the preserving promoters of our glorious Revolution.” It also explains how Thomas Jefferson could write to a Baptist congregation and say, “We have acted together from the origin to the end of a memorable Revolution.” (McDaniel, George White. The People Called Baptists. The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1918. Print.)

And although not every pastor was able to actively participate in our fight for independence, so many pastors throughout colonial America preached the principles of liberty and independence from their pulpits that the Crown created a moniker for them: The Black Regiment (referring to the long, black robes that so many colonial clergymen wore in the pulpit). Without question, the courageous preaching and example of colonial America’s patriot-pastors provided the colonists with the inspiration and resolve to resist the tyranny of the Crown and win America’s freedom and independence.

I invite readers to visit my Black Regiment web page to learn more about my attempt to resurrect America’s Black-Robed Regiment. Go to:

This is the fighting heritage of America’s pastors and preachers. So, what has happened? What has happened to that fighting spirit that once existed, almost universally, throughout America’s Christian denominations? How have preachers become so timid, so shy, and so cowardly that they will stand apathetic and mute as America faces the destruction of its liberties? Where are the preachers to explain, expound, and extrapolate the principles of liberty from Holy Writ? Where are the pastors to preach the truth about Romans chapter 13?

Readers should know that my constitutional attorney son, Tim, and I have co-authored a blockbuster book dealing with Romans 13. The book is entitled, “Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission.” And it can be ordered at:

Plus, I also delivered four messages dealing with Romans 13. The message series is entitled, “The True Meaning of Romans 13.” These four video messages have been recorded on one DVD and may be ordered at:

I am absolutely convinced that one of the biggest reasons America is in the sad condition that it is in today is because the sermons Americans frequently hear from modern pulpits deal mostly with prosperity theology, entertainment evangelism, feelgoodism, emotionalism, and Aren’t-I-Wonderful ear tickling! This milquetoast preaching, along with a totally false “obey-the-government-no-matter-what” interpretation of Romans 13, have made it next to impossible to find Christian men with the courage and resolve to stand against the onslaught of socialism, corporatism, and, yes, fascism that is swallowing America whole.

America cut its spiritual teeth on the powerful preaching and exemplary examples of men such as James Caldwell, John Peter Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, and, yes, Jonas Clark. We need them as much today as we did then–maybe more!

Judicial Cowardice – A Stench Rolling Across America

“Is there anything more shameful than the man who lacks the courage to be a coward?” Peter Blaunder

On April 10, 2012, another Obama/Soetoro ballot access hearing took place in New Jersey. Objectors were represented by superior legal counsel, Mario Apuzzo. Barry Soetoro’s attorney’ argument can only be described as delusional:

“Obama’s attorney made a motion to dismiss the Objection in its entirety. She argued that it was not relevant to being placed on the ballot whether Mr. Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” where he was born, and whether he was born to U.S. citizen parents. She said that no law in New Jersey obligated him to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.”

What Ms. Hill is saying is that anyone can be a presidential candidate on their state ballot. Doesn’t matter where the individual was born or whether he was even born to U.S. citizen parents. The hell with the U.S. Constitution and why the framers grand fathered in the clause about ‘natural born citizen’.

The implications behind such lunacy, never mind stomping on the U.S. Constitution, are horrendous. But, of course, the useful fools who serve their master don’t give a damn. They care only for their paychecks and protecting the empty suit camped out in our White House.

Mario argued the meat of ballot qualification regarding candidates for U.S. president:

“We argued that Mr. Obama under the Constitution has to be a “natural born Citizen.” We argued that under New Jersey law (the state constitution, statutes, and case law), Mr. Obama must show that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. We argued that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot. Judge Masin denied Obama’s motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.”

The “trial” was another farce:

“After calling to the witness stand Mr. Moran and Mr. Purpura, who gave testimony as to why they brought the ballot challenge, and introducing documents showing there is a question as to Mr. Obama’s identity, I called Brian Wilcox to testify as an internet image expert. Mr. Wilcox was going to testify on how the Obama April 27, 2011, long-form birth certificate has been altered and manipulated either by computer software or by a human or both, producing a forged documents, and that since the image is not reliable, we need to see the original paper version. Obama’s lawyer objected to my proffered testimony. I then offered that I would not need to have Mr. Wilcox testify, provided that Obama stipulated that the internet image of his birth certificate could not be used as evidence by either Judge Masin or the New Jersey Secretary of States and that he presented to the court or the Secretary of State no other evidence of his identity or place of birth.

“Judge Masin also asked Obama’s attorney whether she would so stipulate. She did so stipulate, agreeing that both the court and the Secretary of State cannot rely on the internet birth certificate as evidence of Obama’s place of birth and that Obama has produced no other evidence to the court regarding his place of birth. She also argued that Obama has no legal obligation to produce any such evidence to get on the primary ballot. Judge Masin then took the issue under advisement. Having produced absolutely no evidence of his eligibility for the Office of President, Judge Masin will decide whether as a matter of law Obama has a legal duty to produce such evidence before he may be placed on the New Jersey ballot in light of the pending objection filed against him. If he decides that he does, then the Objection will be successful. If he decides that Obama has no such legal obligation, the Objection would fail on the first issue.

“The second issue that Judge Masin addressed was whether the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” includes the requirement that the child be born to two U.S. citizen parents. Judge Masin relied heavily upon the fact that no court in the nation has yet ruled that Mr. Obama had to have two U.S. citizen parents at the time of his birth. I explained that most cases regarding Mr. Obama have been ruled in his favor on procedural grounds rather than on the merits of the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” He relied heavily upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and its use of the English common law to define U.S. citizenship. We also discussed the Indiana Ankeny decision and the Georgia ballot access cases. I explained how Wong did not hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen,” but only a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment which does not define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” I explained that Wong distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen,” explaining how Justice Gray used Horace Binney’s distinction between both classes of citizens. I argued that it is error to rely upon Wong as though it held Wong to be a “natural born Citizen.”

Both the judge and Barry’s attorney agreed the Internet birth certificate released by the impostor in the White House cannot be used as evidence to prove his place of birth. A huge admission that made absolutely no difference to the gutless coward wearing a black robe.

Several hours after the fake trial, Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, emailed Mario to inform him he believes the malignant narcissist in the White House was born in Hawaii and is therefore eligible, ignoring completely the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement.

Soetoro’s attorney made a very important admission:

“Then Masin turned to Hill and asked her directly:

“Is it your legal position that the document on the Internet is irrelevant to this case?

“Hill replied, “Yes.” Masin then asked:

“And indeed you concede that Mr. Obama has not produced an alleged birth certificate to the Secretary of State.

“Hill at first said, “It has been released nationally,” but then admitted that she did not know personally that Obama had given any such document to the Secretary of State, nor did she intend giving such a document to the court today. But she also argued, after Judge Masin asked her repeatedly, that Obama need not produce any evidence at all.

“Apuzzo told CNAV during a recess in the hearing that this was the most stunning thing that any lawyer for Obama had ever admitted, in an Obama eligibility case or in any other case. When the hearing finally adjourned at 12:30 p.m., Apuzzo was confident of prevailing on this point.

“He observed that Hill, after objecting to everything that Apuzzo tried to introduce into evidence, offered no evidence on her own behalf and even admitted that the infamous PDF document was legally worthless.”

Without a single piece of verifiable evidence and completely ignoring the U.S. Constitution as to eligibility requirements for a presidential candidate, Judge Masin checked his manhood at the door and will forever be a coward.

The same thing happened recently with the hearings in Georgia recently:

“It’s official: the corruption goes all the way to the top of the Georgia judicial branch. This week the Georgia Supreme Court denied our motion for an emergency injunction to delay the certification of the Georgia Democratic Presidential primary election results. Yesterday the Georgia Secretary of State certified Obama as the winner of that election.

“There’s an old saying in law: reasonable minds can differ on almost any argument. Our motion for injunction was an exception to the rule. No reasonable, unbiased person would have denied this motion. We were asking for something that wouldn’t have harmed the defendant in any way. Delaying certification of the primary election results for a few weeks would not have changed the outcome of the election and would not have cost a dime. When granting an injunction will harm no one, and denying the motion will arguably destroy the Constitution, what possible reason could be given for denying the motion? Apparently the answer for the Georgia Supreme Court is: None.

“The order denying our motion was one sentence: “Upon consideration of Applicant’s ‘Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction,’ the motion is hereby DENIED.”

“You can see the order on our web site. Such one-sentence orders are not unheard of. However, in this case issuing a one-sentence denial reflects an unbelievable level of disregard for the importance of this motion. Add to that the fact that a denial is completely unsupportable considering the relief requested, and you can see why this ruling is so appalling. Essentially the Georgia Supreme Court said: We deny your request for relief that would have harmed no one, and we have so much contempt for your request that we’re not going to bother explaining our shocking ruling.

“The Court also waited to rule until an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was impossible. Liberty Legal Foundation filed our emergency motion seven days before the Georgia Court ruled. As you can see from our filings on our web site we gave the Georgia Court all the information it needed, including the lack of harm that would result from granting our motion. Both LLF and Georgia Representative Mark Hatfield pointed out to the Court the date on which the Secretary of State planned to certify the election. Yet the Court sat on our filings for seven days, then ruled on the day certification had been planned.

“If we had been given one or two days we could have filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court. Currently the Justice assigned to review such motions from Georgia is the most Constitutional originalist, Justice Clarence Thomas. I’m sure that the Georgia Supreme Court is aware that Justice Thomas would have been our next step, had we had time to file another motion. The Georgia Court ensured that such review was not possible by waiting until the last day to rule before our motion became moot. It is possible that this timing was nothing more than a busy court not being able to rule faster, but after what we have seen in Georgia, do you believe that? Even if that is true, what does it say about this Court’s level of respect for the importance of this case? The Court didn’t even bother to spell our client’s name correctly!”

In my lifetime I have never seen such cowardice by public servants, elected or appointed, including the Outlaw Congress.

Never. Not in any of the worst political scandals in my lifetime.

All to protect someone who, through fraud, lying and cheating, has usurped the highest office in our land. The actions of Judge Masin, Judge Malihi and the entire Georgia Judiciary shame all the blood spilled on the battlefield to birth this republic. If Patrick Henry were alive today, he would spit in their face and call them out for being the yellow bellied cowards they are.

We know why. To deny Soetoro a place on any ballot in the 50 states is an admission he was not eligible in 2008 and he’s not eligible in 2012. Such an admission would create a constitutional crisis never seen before in our land. Every bill the usurper has signed into “law” is null and void as is every treaty and action Soetoro has taken masquerading as our legitimate president.

There are many critical major issues we are fighting: Agenda 21, Monsanto poisoning us, massive spending an unpayable debt; an endless list to be sure.

However, when enough people lose faith in our court system, anarchy is sure to follow.

If judges refuse to uphold laws passed by their state legislatures, and federal judges continue to ignore the U.S. Constitution, why should anyone obey any laws?

Judicial cowardice must become a major issue in this country. Depending on the level of judge, many can be removed by recall. Removal from the bench varies by state. Usually state supreme court justices are appointed by governors. In November 2010, determined citizens in Iowa threw three of their Supreme Court Justices off the bench for their decision to allow a legal fiction called ‘same sex marriage’. There was a lot of sniveling, but the only thing that counts is the will of the people and the determined people in Iowa had their way.

It can happen in every state, it just takes boots on the ground. In New Jersey, here is the law:

New Jersey Statutes 52:14F-4 – Administrative law judges; appointment, terms; compensation; recall
New Jersey Statutes- Title 52- Chapter 14F – § 52:14F-4 – Administrative law judges; appointment, terms; compensation; recall

4. Permanent administrative law judges shall be appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate to initial terms of one year. During this initial term, each judge shall be subject to a program of evaluation as delineated in section 5 of P.L.1978, c.67 (C.52:14F-5). First reappointment of a judge after this initial term shall be by the Governor for a term of four years and until the appointment and qualification of the judge’s successor.

That makes it more difficult, but if large groups like 9/12 or tea party chapters got together and hounded their governor to remove Masin, they can succeed. While Gov. Chris Christie has been made some sort of ‘conservative’ hero by dullard’s like Sean Hannity, beware of the wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing. But, if you want something bad enough, like the good people in Iowa, you go after it.

Make Judge Masin a household name for being a coward by getting on talk radio, writing letters to the editor. Make that judge (or a judge in your state that needs to be removed from the bench) such a pariah in the public’s eye, they resign. It can be done. I know it was done in California. Citizens attempted to recall a state senator. They didn’t succeed with signatures, but his reputation was so justifiably ruined, he never ran for office again.

If I lived in New Jersey I would get my volunteers together, get my permit and stand outside the building where Masin hears cases (Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville, New Jersey 08619) with a huge banner which reads: ‘Judge Masin is a coward who does not believe in the law’. Have a one page flyer to hand out which gives an overview of the trial and explain his gutless decision. Make your flyer about the law, not politics: Regardless of your political affiliation, or even if you have none, no one is above the law, not even Obama/Soetoro. And, stay with it until you succeed. Hound Masin right out of a job he doesn’t deserve to keep.

My volunteers and I did it for nine months outside the “Federal” Reserve building in Denver, CO., in 1993. In freezing cold temperatures to blistering sun, holding our huge banner to abolish the “Fed” – 80 years is enough! People flocked to us for a copy of my Why A Bankrupt America booklet, which I gave out for free. Even local police on their horses wanted know why we were there and took a copy of my booklet. People hopped off the bus, grabbed my booklet and hopped back on. We educated thousands. Not ten or twenty people, but thousands.

Every time some judge renders yet another decision to completely ignore the crimes of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, it is another step towards a totalitarian system that will crush us. We must stop the stench. That will only happen by unifying and acting no matter the sacrifice.

The Man Who Should Be President

Today, I am going to do something that I have never done: I am going to devote virtually my entire column to posting another man’s words. That man is the man who should be President of the United States: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. The following is a written transcript of a speech Dr. Paul gave on the floor of the US House of Representatives back in 2007. Had Congressman Paul been elected President in 2008, the country would be four years into the greatest economic, political, and, yes, spiritual recovery in the history of America. As it is, the US is on the brink of totalitarianism and economic ruin. And you can mark it down, four years from now it won’t matter to a tinker’s dam whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney was elected President this November. Neither man has the remotest understanding of America’s real problems nor the courage and backbone to do anything about it if they did understand.

Read the following. This is a man who understands the Constitution. This is a man who understands sound economic principles. This is a man who understands liberty and freedom. This is a man who has the guts to tell the truth. This is a man who has put his life and career on the line for the principles of liberty for more than two decades. This is a man who has returned every dollar that he has been paid as a US congressman to the taxpayers. This is the man who should be President of the United States.

[Ron Paul’s speech begins here] For some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government’s abuse of the people’s rights.

I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.

What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.

The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.

Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.

True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.

Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.

It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.

Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?

Randolph Bourne said that, “War is the health of the state.” With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a “war psychology” to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.

Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe.

This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism; that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.

Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big-government liberals and big-government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.

The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.

All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.

Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result.

Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code’s unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.

Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state’s pleasure.

A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.

Protesters against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head. Whether it’s with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots.

If there is a war going on, supporting the state’s effort to win the war is expected at all costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties, which they are told is necessary.

The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.

We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.

Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed, that is, our policy of foreign interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world’s policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration.

We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.

Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed.

The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time.

The war mentality and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs.

Our enemies say boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.

We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.

These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security.

We may be the economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost.

The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then.

The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear.

The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long-planned invasion of Iraq.

The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.

The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time to study it. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.

The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to library and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens’ use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.

The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.

Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.

Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in, though obviously extralegal.

A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government’s list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one’s name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver’s license. If REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver’s license ID for all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers.

Some of the least-noticed and least-discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic.

Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called “other conditions.” The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors’ approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States.

The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King’s abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire-building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.

Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliché “Support the Troops” is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.

Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm’s way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of “patriot”?

Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.

But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty. [Ron Paul’s speech ends here]

There it is. The speech Dr. Paul gave in 2007 seems even more relevant today than it did then. Don’t you think?

You want to elect a real American statesman? You want to elect a man who would preserve liberty and freedom in America? You want to elect a man who would resist the devilish New World Order? You want to elect a man who would reestablish sound economic principles? If so, you will vote to elect Ron Paul as President of the United States. (And, no, no one has paid me a penny to post his speech or make this endorsement.)

Forget all the smoke and mirrors and the dog and pony shows that you see and hear from the other Presidential candidates. The issues that Dr. Paul addressed in this speech are the issues that are going to determine our country’s future. Again, this is the man who should be President of the United States.

Americans love the IRS and the income tax

“….We’re confiscating property now….That’s socialism. It’s written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what’s happening to him.” T. Coleman Andrews, May 25, 1956, U.S. News & World Report, Commissioner of the IRS for 33 months under the Eisenhower Administration before he resigned.

This year you will work until April 17th to pay for all the massive debt created by incumbents in the Outlaw Congress:

( – “Americans have until April 17 to file their federal tax returns this year, and ironically, according to the Tax Foundation, the average American will have to work from Jan.1 until exactly that day just to pay his or her share of the taxes that government will absorb this year.”

Trillions stolen from we the people to fund unconstitutional foreign aid, cabinets, agencies, loans and a million other categories.

This year you will be forced with the threat of imprisonment and bankruptcy, to file an “income” tax return even though the income tax does not apply to most Americans.

This “tax season” companies like H & R Block will make millions supporting the big lie about who is liable for the income tax.

Yes, the “income” tax is big business that involves employing a lot of people. About 94,000 who work for the IRS full time. All those tax preparation companies. Private operations like Quatloos and the Southern (Money Bags) Poverty Law Center who both have maligned me, Joe Banister, Larry Becraft and others for telling the truth. Their blood money is made from supporting the big lie. Your misery is their paycheck.

How about a big cheese like, Charles Rossotti, former commissar of the IRS? John Berlau at did a piece March 31, 2001, that was quite revealing:

“Charles O. Rossotti was appointed by Bill Clinton to head the IRS in 1997. His background in technology and business won praise at the time from both Republicans and Democrats. Rossotti had been chairman of American Management Systems (AMS), a Fairfax, Va.-based information-technology consulting firm that he cofounded after a stint as one of Robert McNamara’s famed “Whiz Kids” at the Defense Department’s Office of Systems Analysis. With the IRS computer systems in disarray and gross abuses of taxpayer rights unearthed during congressional hearings, members of Congress were eager to have a “manager” at the helm of IRS rather than another political tax attorney.

“So eager, apparently, that the Senate Finance Committee agreed to let Rossotti keep his stock in AMS, even though the company was providing computer software and data-processing services to the IRS. At his confirmation hearing Rossotti promised Sen. William Roth of Delaware, then-chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, that he would divest “if AMS decides to bid for more work from the IRS beyond existing GSA contracts, or successor contracts of similar scope.” He also said he would do his best to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. “No one has, I do not think, a greater interest than I do in ensuring that no one believes, at this stage in my life, that I have taken on this job in order to further any particular interest of my own,” Rossotti said.

“Yet in a press release dated Nov. 7, 1997 just four days after he was confirmed as IRS commissioner on a Senate vote of 92-0, but in a convenient interlude before he was sworn Rossotti praised the achievements of AMS in a company press release announcing his IRS confirmation and AMS resignation. “This is an exciting time for AMS,” Rossotti said, sounding like the major shareholder he is, in this release distributed to the business press by the PR Newswire service. “Within the next year, AMS is expected to reach $1 billion in revenues. The company will have nearly 9,000 employees working with leading organizations around the world, including the largest banks, telecommunications firms, government organizations, health-care providers and utilities….

“According to his most recent financial-disclosure forms (filed in May 2000), at the end of 1999 Rossotti and his wife, Barbara, owned between $16 million and $80 million in AMS stock. In 1998, the New York Times reported that he was the largest individual shareholder in AMS, a company that last year had revenues of $1.28 billion.” End of excerpt

Rossotti refused to divest himself of his stock. That corporation employs a lot of people. A large percentage of those employees at AMS (and their paychecks), will keep working as long as the contracts keep coming from the IRS. What better way to ensure that, than the commissioner himself remain a huge stockholder? Rossotti owns a fortune in stock in that company which services contracts with the IRS. Rossetti left the IRS and went to The Carlyle Group.

But, none of this seems to matter to the nearly 100 million Americans who continue to reelect the same liars for hire to the U.S. Congress. For the past few months enthusiastic supporters of incumbents have been out there working to get their Congress critter reelected. The same miscreants who steal from us, lie to us and cheat us out of our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. The same incumbents who have and continue to lie to those enthusiastic supporters about the nature of the “income” tax.

Roughly 100 million Americans working for their own destruction while thinking it’s a good idea. Classic Sun Tzu’s Art of War.

Tommy Cryer is my attorney in the fight out here in Texas to get ‘smart’ meters banned. In 2006, Tommy Cryer was indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice for two counts of tax evasion. In July of 2007, the IRS reduced the charges to willful failure to file income tax returns. He went to trial and was unanimously acquitted by the jury.

This issue is NOT about “paying your fair” share on April 15th. This is a legal issue that involves more lies by “our” government.

When I first began my journey so long ago, it began quite by accident. In 1991, I was at a book signing for my first published book; the big publisher’s shindig in LA. My publisher handed me a book which, really, just opened to the chapter on the “Federal” Reserve. It literally changed my life.

Being the curious type, from there I learned the truth about the privately owned banking consortium referred to as the “Federal” Reserve, its relationship to the “income” tax and more. I can tell you without hesitation: the IRS has been misapplying the IRC longer than I’ve been alive. Domestic Americans are not subject to the “income” tax.

I do not recommend anyone do what Tommy did because the federal judiciary and the U.S. prosecutors are joined at the hip. The collusion is beyond reprehensible, kissed and blessed by YOUR incumbent in the Outlaw Congress. At some point, as with prohibition, something will give or the financial collapse comes first; it’s underway, no one should make any mistake about that.

Challenging fraud and wrong doing by governments, state or federal, is our duty and responsibility. As a self-governing people, only we can hold them in check.

Tommy’s noble fight led him to write a 90 page document titled, The Memorandum. As someone who has spent two decades on this and other critical issues, that paper is by far and away the single most important one ever presented on who is and who is not liable for the “income” tax. Fear has been the biggest factor in the fraud perpetrated upon we the people. If you take the time to read Tommy’s legal analysis, you won’t feel fear. Likely you will feel rage.

We know it is being read by attorneys, law professors and government officials all over this country. Not by members of the U.S. Congress. They need the “income” tax to continue stealing the fruits of our labor to fund trillions of dollars in unconstitutional spending and waste via the candy store known as the “Fed.”

If you would like to learn the truth about the “income” tax, here is the link to The Memorandum authored by Tommy.

This weekend you might want to watch a new video. It is an interview with Joseph Banister. For those not familiar with Joe, he was a special agent with the IRS in their CID (Criminal Investigation Division) making $80,000 a year. An up and coming star who carried a gun to work everyday in pursuit of tax cheats. One day something happened that changed his life forever. Joseph is the highest ranking IRS employee ever to step forward and tell the truth about the nature of the income tax.

Joe’s research and subsequent actions by his stupidvisors eventually caused him to resign from the IRS and a secure future with a handsome paycheck. He was also indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice and went on trial in a federal court room in Sacramento. I attended his trial and literally couldn’t stand the drama knowing his freedom could be taken away over a lie. Thankfully, like Tommy, the jury unanimously acquitted Joe on all charges. You can watch him tell his story here.

Below is my column on what happened in the court room. Joe Banister is one of the kindest souls you’ll ever meet. He is also a person of raw courage that has cost him dearly:

The Agony, The Ecstasy and the Agony

As I said in my last column: A closed mind is a terrible thing. It is because of people like Tommy and Joe that Americans are learning the truth and that is a dangerous thing to the dark forces determined to crush resistance to totalitarian force by state and federal agencies.

When I wrote Americans love the IRS and income tax I meant it. If they didn’t, they would not continue to reelect the same liars back to Congress who refuse to get rid of the privately owned “Federal” Reserve, the unnecessary federal “income” tax and stop the insane spending; here and here. No. Instead, they’re out there working to help their incumbent win their primary!

We did not have a federal “income” tax prior to 1913 and we don’t need one now. (Don’t fall for all the popular taxing schemes out there, i.e., flat tax.) Smaller government means abolishing unconstitutional agencies and spending. Abolishing the unconstitutional “Federal” Reserve is at the top of the list. When Rep. Ron Paul introduced a bill to do just that five years ago, not a single member of Congress supported it. Why? Because without the piggy bank, those poltroons would not be able to continue funding the grotesque invasions and occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan and “military operations” in Pakistan. They would not be able to continue taxing us to death to hand trillions over the past 30 years to foreign countries while you and I pay the principle and the interest for the rest of our lives.

Aren’t Americans tired of living in fear of the IRS? Tired of them snooping into your life during an audit even when you make an honest mistake? If you want the truth, do read The Memorandum and vote out every incumbent in the U.S. Congress this coming November. Not one of them deserves your respect because they don’t respect you enough to tell you the truth.

Links: – rubbing our noses in it:

1- Video shows federal officials joking about cost of lavish conference
2- 20 Examples of how the sweat of your labor is wasted


Multiculturalism is a word that refers to a fact, as well as to a fallacy. On the one hand, a demographic change has and is occurring in America. For the past 40 years, most immigrants have come from Asia, Africa and Latin America, instead of from Europe. Moreover, the birthrates for these and other non-white minorities are substantially higher than for whites. This has led to a “browning of America” and to multiculturalism in fact. The ideology of multiculturalism, however, is a horse of a different color. Unlike the fact of multiculturalism, this ideology by the same name is a fallacy that poses a vital threat to America. Indeed, it is a tool of the political left for changing the country’s educational and political institutions. A variant of cultural relativism, it posits an explicit denial that Western and American civilizations have anything in them superior to other cultures. Further, the ideology entails the assertion that Western and American civilizations are actually worse, that successes for the past half millennium are the product of exploitation—namely colonialism, and slavery.

Well, that of course is horse hockey. In point of fact, colonialism and slavery are universal and not distinctively Western. The British conquered India and ruled it for 300 years, but before the British there were the Persians, the Mongols, the Afghans, and Alexander the Great. As for slavery, it has existed in all cultures: ancient India, China, Greece and Rome, and in Africa. American Indians even practiced it before Columbus corrupted them. What’s uniquely Western isn’t slavery but abolition—the movement to end slavery developed in Western civilization. As author and academic Dinesh D’Souza, himself an immigrant from India, has stated, “Never outside the West have slave-owners and potential slave-owners proclaimed principles condemning it, and expended blood and treasure ending it.” Moreover, Western civilization has produced the height of all civilizations in certain respects, to include literature. As Saul Bellow pointed out a few years ago, there ain’t a Tolstoy of the Zulus or a Proust amongst the Papuans. (He caught quite a bit of flack for his insensitivity, by the way). Obviously, there are great works produced by non-Western cultures—and you can add these and still remain anchored in Western thought and culture!

Recently the multicultural ideologues came up with another bizarre idea to give reparations for slavery—cash payments to blacks today to make up for the injustice of historical slavery. It made me think of what Muhammad Ali said after his mid-1970s fight with George Foreman. The fight was held in Zaire. After he returned to America, he was asked what he thought of Africa. He replied, “Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat.” Although a funny quip, colonialism and slavery proved ironical. They were bad for the generations experiencing them but indirectly beneficial to generations that followed. D’Souza points out that his Indian grandfather was embittered by the unfair treatment he experienced under British rule. Paradoxically, however, as a consequence of the same colonial rule, his grandchild learned ideas and traditions that inform a Western understanding of freedom: separation of powers, democracy, human dignity, equal rights.

Slavery in America was clearly harmful and wrong to the people who lived under it, but it proved to be the unintended transmission belt that brought Africans into the orbit of Western freedom. Are the descendants of slaves really worse off? Would Jesse Jackson be better off living in Uganda? Would we? (Don’t answer that). No, we cannot repair the harm done to those who suffered under slavery, but it would be absurd to pay those who have benefited most from their ancestors’ suffering.

There’s something else I want to say about the liberals’ mantra, “We are the world.” When they say multicultural, ask them “multi-what?” I don’t want America to be a microcosm of the world, if by that you would include all the ignorance, ugliness, vice and corruption that are present in the world—chiefly (though not exclusively) from non-Western imports. No, I’m old fashioned enough to want the best for America. I want to bring the best minds and the best souls here and to encourage those to flourish. America ought to represent a filtration of the mass of humanity. We need to have reasonable rates of immigration, and we ought to be selective. Western and American institutions are uniquely suited to bring out the best in everyone who is here—you might even say our institutions are superior in that regard. In the process, it doesn’t matter what color you are, to what race or religion you belong. It matters intensely, however, the character and the heart you bring. It matters that you are willing to uphold the Constitution of these United States and to love this great Republic. We are not the world, we are what the world hopes to become.

Hutaree Militiamen Cleared In Court

Much to the chagrin of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a federal judge has cleared the members of a Michigan militia who were accused by federal law enforcement agents of conspiracy to commit sedition. Since you didn’t hear much about this ruling from the national press corps, here is one online version of the report:

“Seven members of a Michigan militia have been cleared of plotting to overthrow the U.S. government as a judge dismissed the most serious charges against them.

“In a shock defeat for federal authorities, District Judge Victoria Roberts said the group’s expressed hatred of law enforcement did not amount to a conspiracy.

“The FBI secretly planted an informant and an agent inside the Hutaree militia in 2008 to collect hours of anti-government audio and video that became the cornerstone of the case.

“Senior officials had insisted they had captured homegrown rural extremists poised for war.

“But the judge said: ‘The court is aware that protected speech and mere words can be sufficient to show a conspiracy. In this case, however, they do not rise to that level.’’

“Judge Roberts granted requests for acquittal on the most serious charges: conspiring to commit sedition, or rebellion, against the U.S. and conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction.

“Other weapons crimes linked to the alleged conspiracies were also dismissed.”

Read more:…

At this point, I believe it is necessary that I review a column I wrote on April 6, 2010, regarding the Hutaree militia raid. As you read the words that follow, please remember that they were written TWO YEARS AGO–almost to the day.

[2010 column starts here] I want to try and expound on William Norman Grigg’s outstanding analysis of the Hutaree militia raid. In doing so, I am going to also expand upon Grigg’s reference to James Madison’s trenchant treatise in Federalist 46.

Referring to the federal indictment against the Hutaree militia, that alleged members were making preparations for potential armed conflict against law enforcement officers as a “seditious conspiracy,” Grigg astutely noted, “If they were acquiring weapons and developing appropriate skills in anticipation of defending themselves against government aggression, their actions–while possibly conspiratorial in nature–don’t amount to a crime. This is particularly true in light of our cultural history, in which sedition–agitation to change the existing political order–is our proudest civic tradition.”

Grigg then rightly observes, “Government is nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of violence. Everything done by government contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion. Thus the indictment’s description of Hutaree as ‘an anti-government extremist organization which advocates violence against local, state and Federal law enforcement’ is a product of rhetorical onanism [from Genesis 38:9–a great analogy, Will].”

As a general rule, government is the most violent force on the planet. If one wants to get a true perspective on the historical record regarding who or what routinely produces the most violence and death, one should pick up a copy of R. J. Rummel’s book, “Death By Government.” Since the end of World War II, Communist China and Red Russia lead the pack when it comes to death and brutality; however, the US government has inflicted its share of carnage as well. For example, in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, the government in Washington, D.C., has killed over 800,000 civilians (and this figure is a conservative estimate noting the most credible resources possible).


Also see:

Plus, does anyone remember the violence that our federal government enacted upon the Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas? Does anyone remember the mother shot in the head while innocently holding her little baby in her own home by a federal sniper near Ruby Ridge, Idaho (after her small son was shot in the back by federal agents)? In fact, the list of civilians who have been killed by federal law enforcement agents over the years is a very long one. Granted, many of these killings were done in lawful self-defense; but others amounted to nothing less than old-fashioned murder (and never was the federal agent who committed the murder ever brought to justice).

If one wants to indict an “organization which advocates violence,” then surely the central government in Washington, D.C., should be indicted!

If Hutaree members were indeed planning AGGRESSIVE violence against anyone–in the government or without–they deserved to be stopped. If, however, they were simply preparing to DEFEND THEMSELVES against government overreach or abuse–and would only resort to violence in an act of lawful self-defense–they committed no crime and are but the most recent victims of federal abuse of power. This is a question that will doubtless be determined in a court of law.

To charge, however (as the indictment does), that Hutaree members (all 9 of them!) planned “to levy war against the United States, [and] to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States . . .” will take some doing to make stick. As Grigg points out, “If Hutaree was preparing for armed DEFENSE against criminal actions by government officials, this charge is as pointless as a broken pencil. If their efforts to ‘prevent, hinder, and delay’ various government initiatives were confined to activism, rather than armed conflict, they are–in that particular–not substantially different from hundreds or thousands of other groups.”

The entire case against Hutaree appears to be based upon the testimony of an FBI undercover agent inside the group. Placing agent provocateurs inside groups such as Hutaree is a classic strategy of federal police agencies. This part of the story was broken by the Wall Street Journal.

See the WSJ report at:…

Using agent provocateurs is a long-favored tactic of both the Kremlin and the White House. Joel Skousen’s latest WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF contains an extremely trenchant and insightful analysis of how Russia and the US have used–and continue to use–this tactic.

Skousen writes, “A related tactic [to false flag operations] is the hiring of agent provocateurs to infiltrate a group targeted for destruction and induce radical elements of that group to perform crimes against innocent civilians that will justify armed retaliation or arrest. With the sudden surge in claimed terrorism in Russia and the arrest of the radical Hutaree group in the US, it is helpful to review the role of false flag terror attacks in Russia and the role of agent provocateurs in the US as we analyze what’s really going on.”

Skousen further states, “As we move on to discuss the arrest of the radical members of the Hutaree cult in Michigan, it is important to note that virtually every prosecution of so-called domestic terrorism in the past decade is owed to the infiltration of FBI informants. While none of us in America dispute the need to gain intelligence on real threats to national security, we have to question the propriety of training and pressuring informants (most of which have been forced to accept the informant assignment in lieu of a prison term for other crimes committed) to provoke and induce angry and unstable dissidents to commit acts of terror.

“All too often, FBI ‘informants’ have been pressured by superiors to go far beyond informing. They have provided weapons, explosives, and even acted as the guiding hand to map out the strategy and tactics for performing the deed. These things only come out reluctantly during trial, and even then I suspect that we are never allowed to know the full extent of these provocations.”

To receive a sample of Joel Skousen’s WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF or to subscribe to this excellent newsletter (I highly recommend it), write to:

[email protected]

In addition, Will Grigg states that another major component of the indictment that is worrisome is the charge that Hutaree is guilty of “seditious conspiracy.” As Grigg writes, “Whatever is eventually learned about Hutaree, as things presently stand the indictment against it could provide a template for ‘seditious conspiracy’ prosecutions involving practically any group that endorses the use of defensive force to protect citizens against government aggression.

“Indeed, the definition of ‘conspiracy’ used in the Hutaree indictment could make a criminal out of anyone who reads Federalist Paper 46 in public, thereby sharing James Madison’s commendably seditious admonition that the people preserve ‘the advantage of being armed’ in the event that insurrection against the central government proves necessary in order to preserve liberty.”

Let’s look a little closer at Federalist 46, written by Founding Father, author of the US Constitution, and America’s fourth President, James Madison. In dispelling the fears of colonists toward a standing federal army, Madison said in Federalist 46, “Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”

Madison went on to say, “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Could Madison be any clearer? He (and the rest of America’s founders) emphatically expected the militia of the “several States” to be universally armed against the potential encroachment on liberty by the central government, meaning: the citizenry must at all times be prepared to use their arms against any aggressive nature of the federal government to trample their freedoms.

This, of course, reinforces the founders’ intent, that the 2nd Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the express purpose of providing the citizenry with the capability to repel (with violence) any assault against their liberties by their own federal government.

So, pray tell, would today’s FBI categorize James Madison’s statements in Federalist 46 as “seditious conspiracy”? If so, perhaps we are closer to tyranny than any of us wants to admit!

Furthermore, it is not lost to millions of Americans that this is the same federal government (through Department of Homeland Security fusion centers) that just recently characterized pro-lifers; people who support the 2nd Amendment; people who oppose the United Nations and illegal immigration; people who voted for Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin; and Iraq War veterans as “extremists” and potential “dangerous militia members.”

But, once again, the federal government–along with their propagandists in the major news media, including its artificial authority on militias, the ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in Montgomery, Alabama–is able to use the Hutaree militia to demonize militias in general, and even more damaging, to try and destroy the concept of constitutional State militias in the minds of the American public.

Did members of the Hutaree intend to carry out aggressive violence against law enforcement personnel? I have no idea. Until this story broke in the national media, I had never heard of this group. I will wait for the facts to come out–if indeed the federal government and national media even allow the facts to come out.

I do know this: I do not trust the federal government to tell the truth about anything! They did not tell the truth about the Branch Davidians at Waco; they did not tell the truth about Randy Weaver; they did not tell the truth about Gordon Kahl; and, if their track record is any indicator, it is doubtful that they are telling the truth about the Hutaree militia. But we shall see.

In the meantime, as William Norman Grigg opines, “There’s reason to believe that the Feds have expanded and escalated this ongoing enterprise to exploit, and exacerbate, growing public hostility toward an increasingly invasive and esurient government.

“Whether it is ever demonstrated that Hutaree intended to ‘levy war’ against the U.S. government, this much is beyond serious dispute: The Homeland Security state is unambiguously preparing for war with the public–in fact, it has been doing so for a long time.” [2010 column ends here]

I invite readers to visit William Norman Grigg’s blog at:

Well, now in 2012, the facts have all been laid bare. The Hutaree militia was innocent of the federal government’s conspiracy charges, and the federal government, once again, did not tell the truth. And, furthermore, the words written by yours truly and Will Grigg seem even more relevant today than they did two years ago, do they not?

In closing, let me be very clear about this: I have nothing but appreciation and respect for honest, God-fearing law enforcement personnel. I count law enforcement personnel among my kinfolk, and I feel very privileged to have been made an honorary deputy sheriff by my former county sheriff. I certainly share no anti-law enforcement prejudice. But the current trend to militarize and federalize law enforcement is both unconstitutional and alarming. Even more alarming is the manner in which the federal government and its toadies at the SPLC are attempting to criminalize the expressions of freedom and constitutional government–the same words, thoughts, and ideas expressed by America’s Founding Fathers. To quote myself, “So, pray tell, would today’s FBI categorize James Madison’s statements in Federalist 46 as ‘seditious conspiracy’? If so, perhaps we are closer to tyranny than any of us wants to admit!”

In the meantime, congratulations to federal District Judge Victoria Roberts for representing the court in a manner consistent with the founders’ intentions: by using the gavel as a hammer to protect liberty rather than as a rubber stamp to dismantle it–as so many federal judges are inclined to do these days.

Compliant Americans

Last month, at a Raeford, N.C., elementary school, a teacher confiscated the lunch of a 5-year-old girl because it didn’t meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines and therefore was deemed nonnutritious. She replaced it with school cafeteria chicken nuggets. The girl’s home-prepared lunch was nutritious; it consisted of a turkey and cheese sandwich, potato chips, a banana and apple juice. But whether her lunch was nutritious or not is not the issue. The issue is governmental usurpation of parental authority.

In a number of states, pregnant teenage girls may be given abortions without the notification or the permission of parents. The issue is neither abortion nor whether a pregnant teenager should have an abortion. The issue is this: What gives the government the authority to usurp parental authority?

Part of the problem is that people who act as instruments of government do not pay a personal price for usurping parental authority. The reason is Americans, unlike Americans of yesteryear, have become timid and, as such, come to accept all manner of intrusive governmental acts. Can you imagine what a rugged American, such as one portrayed by John Wayne, would have done to a government tyrant who confiscated his daughter’s lunch or facilitated her abortion without his permission?

I believe that the anti-tobacco movement partially accounts for today’s compliant American. Tobacco zealots started out with “reasonable” demands, such as the surgeon general’s warning on cigarette packs. Then they demanded nonsmoking sections on airplanes. Emboldened by that success, they demanded no smoking at all on airplanes and then airports and then restaurants and then workplaces — all in the name of health. Seeing the compliant nature of smokers, they’ve moved to ban smoking on beaches, in parks and on sidewalks in some cities. Now they’re calling for higher health insurance premiums for smokers. Had the tobacco zealots demanded their full agenda when they started out, they would not have achieved anything.

Using the anti-tobacco crusade as their template and finding Americans so compliant, zealots and would-be tyrants are extending their agenda.

Why not control what we eat? San Francisco, Chicago and several other cities have outlawed or are seeking to outlaw serving foie gras in restaurants. Here’s my challenge to these people: Don’t be a coward and use the state to accomplish your agenda. If you see Williams eating foie gras, just come up and take it off his plate.

Other food tyrants want to stop us from eating Dove and Haagen-Dazs ice cream, Mrs. Fields cookies and McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets. San Francisco has already banned McDonald’s from selling Happy Meals with toys in them as sales pitches to children. Seeing San Franciscan compliance may have been the source of inspiration for the North Carolina schoolteacher who took the 5-year-old girl’s lunch.

Americans have become compliant in nation-crippling ways. Over the past several years, gasoline prices have been shooting through the roof, but not to worry. President Barack Obama’s current secretary of energy, Steven Chu, said in December 2008, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” That translates to $8 or $9 a gallon. During a recent hearing on the Department of Energy’s budget, Rep. Alan Nunnelee, R-Miss., asked Secretary Chu whether it is the DOE’s “overall goal” to lower gasoline prices. “No,” Chu responded. “The overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy.”

Because Americans are so compliant and willing to suffer silently at the gasoline pump, the Obama administration is willing to press on as handmaidens of environmental extremists who want to halt the exploration of our country’s vast oil supplies, which are estimated to be triple those of Saudi Arabia. The Obama administration would rather pour more taxpayer dollars into risky alternative crony energy suppliers and electric cars. The OPEC nations have to be laughing at us, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were revealed that they are making under-the-table payments to environmental wackos.

Of Easter and Liberty

Last Sunday was Palm Sunday, when Jesus entered Jerusalem and palm branches were strewn before him as a sign of welcome and praise. The Friday after is Good Friday when Jesus was crucified nearly two thousand years ago. Of course, the Sunday following is Easter when Jesus arose from the dead in fulfillment of what he said; and in proof of fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture and prophecy. Holy Week thus commemorates the most signal and momentous series of events in all human history, the week moving as it were, from victory unto Victory—with the depths of passion, pain and despair in between. The Story alone, if it were just literature is rich: for what it says about how quickly and radically a man’s fortunes will change; about the fickle nature of public opinion and public approval; the shallowness of perception at every stage, even if perception is reality—how shallow then the reality we perceive; the limits of loyalty even from friends, and the effects of fear and jealousy and greed on human action; the utter aloneness we face at the door twixt life and death and life again. The Story, however, is greater by far, because it is History and it is true.

It was from the moment of His appearing that the history of our civilization took its dramatic turn and produced ascendant values and aspirations—the definition of what constitutes Good; the attributes of Love; and the Liberty we profess and try to secure through constitutional republican government. The original twelve disciples or Apostles were: Andrew, Bartholomew, James (the younger, son of Alphaeus), James (the elder) and John (sons of Zebedee), Jude (or Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus), Judas Iscariot, Matthew (or Levi), Philip, Simon the Canaanite, Simon (called Peter), and Thomas (or Didymus). Judas who betrayed Jesus killed himself, after which the eleven saw Jesus in both spiritual forms and in the flesh after the Resurrection. The eleven also witnessed the Lord taken up in ascension. It was this powerful and undeniable demonstration of existence and life after death, in addition to a dispensation of Spirit that drove them far and wide—to carry the news and Christ’s doctrine. Incidentally, Matthias was chosen by the eleven to replace Judas. Paul, the “Apostle to the Gentiles” was not among the original twelve but had originally persecuted Christians. He was confronted supernaturally by the risen Christ while traveling on the road to Damascus, and this led to his dramatic conversion. Paul and the twelve then proceeded on a mission as it were from God, recruiting many more “apostles.” The Book of Acts (or the Acts of the Apostles) in the Bible describes the beginnings of the Christian church, all precipitated by Christ’s resurrection that first Easter morning.

Christian forebears founded the United States of America. They knew that leaders, elective or otherwise, needed to borrow a lesson from Solomon. Besides the hard work and vision supplied by the Declaration; besides all those practical matters of planning and raising an army and navy; the multiple responsibilities of checking, tracking, monitoring, correcting, disciplining, and also giving; besides all this they had to have the ‘understanding to discern judgment’ and ‘a wise and understanding heart’ (paraphrase I Kings 3: 11-12). Moreover, they looked ‘into the perfect law of liberty’ and were ‘blessed in their deed’ (paraphrase James 1: 25) to establish for us a written Constitution. One can learn the history of the American Revolution and early Republic all day long, but if one fails to capture and apply the Spirit of ’76 in the context of the Founders’ worldview it is almost a barren exercise. For what then become the rule of law and the context of our government?

Some will say that I digress, but here is where I make the point about all history and indeed all knowledge. Ladies and Gentlemen, I never met Jesus Christ in the flesh when He strode the earth among us—but neither did I know George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et al, in person. Their bones were quite reduced to dust before I was conceived. Yet there is evidence that something great transpired to change the Course of human events. There is also the written word of witnesses, whose bones are also reduced to dust—and I still believe. Faith is the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11: 1) and thus the foundation of all human knowledge, history and science included. I know only because I first believed. I believe the accounts of witnesses and the words recorded of the Founders themselves, who say they likewise believed in the risen Christ and felt His presence when they laid the foundations of this nation. No Ladies and Gentlemen, I have never seen a quark or lepton or cosmic glue either—except that I have a pretty good idea of what holds the Milky Way and the universe together.

The Founders never mistook the means for ends, so unlike our own time. They knew there is a liberty wherewith no human government confers. Authority is never for the sake of authority, or empire or even Union but only to serve the ends of the Creator in creation. That is to say, government serves those truths the Founders said were self-evident; and secures certain unalienable Rights, among them Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That is the Law for government ushered in by the risen Christ, which we need desperately to rediscover or reaffirm. Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea (c. 26-36 A.D.) when Jesus was crucified. Notwithstanding Jewish customs that were broken to deliver Jesus to him, Pilate clearly had the authority according to the laws of Rome to crucify Jesus. No administrative lapse of due process occurred from a Roman standpoint. The letter of the law was carried out. Easter should rekindle our love of Liberty and remind us the laws of the nation are not always in accord.