Ron Paul and cavalry and lasers and Vermin and missing Newts. Another typical NH primary lead-up weekend, January 2012. Forbes.com had fun, too...
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Friday, May 13, 2011
"Three times a charm"
Texas Congressman Dr. Ron Paul announces his candidacy for the GOP 2012 presidential nomination, Exeter, NH, Town Hall, 5/13/2011.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Let the Games Begin!
Former NM Governor Gary Johnson announces his candidacy for the 2012 GOP nomination for US President, State House, Concord, NH, 4/21/2011. I am absolutely giddy at the prospect of seeing Johnson and Ron Paul tag-team this cycle's version of Rudy McRomney in the primary debates...
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Once More Into the Breach
Rep. Ron Paul speaks at the NH Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College, Manchester, NH, 4/15/2011.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Memoriam Revisited
The vented frustrations have proved justified, the predictions borne out, their only failing in being overly optimistic. And my memorial to our lost liberties has more than doubled in height and tripled in breadth in the intervening 2 years. I gotta say I deeply appreciate the appearance it's taken on of a defiantly raised middle finger. This tree "knows" me...
It's curiously and appropriately reminiscent of another iconic image, don't you think...?
Summer 2008
Summer 2010
It's curiously and appropriately reminiscent of another iconic image, don't you think...?
 |
| Last Great Act of Defiance |
Saturday, April 10, 2010
NH's 2nd Amendment March
Scenes from the 2nd Amendment March and Rally in Concord, NH, plus a modest proposal, 4/10/2010.
This. Just... this.
This. Just... this.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Mad as... A Hatter?
The GOP partisans extolling Sarah Palin as the future of the Republican Party conveniently forget that that party has been, for the past 18 months, actively demonizing the philosophy they now maintain she represents. If she represented a future toward which the GOP actually wanted to move, it could have had Ron Paul now.
But it clearly, passionately doesn't want him. Hell, it wouldn't even let him speak at their convention. And it equally doesn't want the Sarah Palin of legend in any position of real power. Her advertised politics will not be allowed to survive intact beyond an impotent (Cheney notwithstanding) VP slot. If she is to become a leader of the party, she must be transformed. She will be assimilated. Right now, at best, she's just an ephemeral bone, a tantalizing but false mirage, a siren's song. And that's hardly anything to get excited about. I've no doubt the GOP as currently constituted -- the GOP of Bush and Cheney and McCain and the rest of the big-government neocon powerbrokers -- is determined to prevail. They've spent the last year-and-a-half proving that.
The Constitution will lose, regardless of which of the 2 parties that we're "allowed" wins in November. There's not a dime's worth of difference among the Demoblicans, who have no interest in endowed individual liberty, Constitutionally limited government and the rule of law; who pick and choose the Constitutional restrictions by which they'll abide, a number that is rapidly approaching zero. We need a better way. Soon. We need our guaranteed Republic back. And the 2 major parties will never, ever "grant" that. Indeed, there exists a negative incentive.
But we're stuck with the government we have only as long as we accept it telling us that we have no other choice. "Lesser of demonstrable evils" is still evil, and I will no longer (haven't for a while) willingly facilitate their continuous and escalating degradation of my freedom. And if everybody who believed the same way actually did the same, the problem would be solved. That's why I'm (still) writing in Ron Paul in November.
My point, though, is really more precisely to take heed of George Washington's Farewell Address and eschew, at least, the self-serving 2-party system. Don't fall for the "wasted vote" canard. Sure, I'd love to convince everyone to write in Ron, too, but it's more important that we all just fundamentally reject The Powers That Be. Stop taking their nakedly worthless word. Vote for Ron Paul or Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin or Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney or George Phillies or even NOTA or... Anyone not anointed by our corporate government.
Tell them you're mad as hell and you're not gonna take it anymore. If you don't, it will definitely never matter to them. And it's true, isn't it?
What if a plurality actually voted for "Not a Demoblican?" Hmmm...?
But it clearly, passionately doesn't want him. Hell, it wouldn't even let him speak at their convention. And it equally doesn't want the Sarah Palin of legend in any position of real power. Her advertised politics will not be allowed to survive intact beyond an impotent (Cheney notwithstanding) VP slot. If she is to become a leader of the party, she must be transformed. She will be assimilated. Right now, at best, she's just an ephemeral bone, a tantalizing but false mirage, a siren's song. And that's hardly anything to get excited about. I've no doubt the GOP as currently constituted -- the GOP of Bush and Cheney and McCain and the rest of the big-government neocon powerbrokers -- is determined to prevail. They've spent the last year-and-a-half proving that.
The Constitution will lose, regardless of which of the 2 parties that we're "allowed" wins in November. There's not a dime's worth of difference among the Demoblicans, who have no interest in endowed individual liberty, Constitutionally limited government and the rule of law; who pick and choose the Constitutional restrictions by which they'll abide, a number that is rapidly approaching zero. We need a better way. Soon. We need our guaranteed Republic back. And the 2 major parties will never, ever "grant" that. Indeed, there exists a negative incentive.
But we're stuck with the government we have only as long as we accept it telling us that we have no other choice. "Lesser of demonstrable evils" is still evil, and I will no longer (haven't for a while) willingly facilitate their continuous and escalating degradation of my freedom. And if everybody who believed the same way actually did the same, the problem would be solved. That's why I'm (still) writing in Ron Paul in November.
My point, though, is really more precisely to take heed of George Washington's Farewell Address and eschew, at least, the self-serving 2-party system. Don't fall for the "wasted vote" canard. Sure, I'd love to convince everyone to write in Ron, too, but it's more important that we all just fundamentally reject The Powers That Be. Stop taking their nakedly worthless word. Vote for Ron Paul or Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin or Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney or George Phillies or even NOTA or... Anyone not anointed by our corporate government.
Tell them you're mad as hell and you're not gonna take it anymore. If you don't, it will definitely never matter to them. And it's true, isn't it?
What if a plurality actually voted for "Not a Demoblican?" Hmmm...?
Saturday, August 23, 2008
NH Live Free or Die Celebration
Scenes from the 3rd annual "Live Free or Die Celebration," Jaffrey, NH, 8/23/2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
On "voting" for Supreme Court Justices
The Declaration of Independence is our "mission statement." The Constitution was subsequently written -- and thus our government created -- within that context. "This is what we believe. This is what's currently wrong. Now, here's the limited servant government we create to address all that for ourselves." They are inextricably linked. The latter is wholly justified within the former, written specifically to address the beliefs and issues enumerated, and -- one might hope, umm, self-evidently -- not to contradict them.
"ALL men" — not just "citizens," which didn't exist when that was written — are endowed with "certain unalienable rights." Says so right there. "That to secure these rights, Governments [plural and generic, and again, written prior to the creation -- or really any realistic hope thereof -- of ours] are instituted among Men [not just residents of the Colonies], deriving their just powers from the consent of the [respective] governed," with the explicit purpose of protecting those pre-existing rights.
Whether these consenting "Men's" respective governments recognize them or not (or whether our government has the authority to impose them by force on other jurisdictions through the fascistic military-industrial complex with forcibly stolen and inflated taxpayer dollars) is an entirely different matter, but ours is required to recognize them within its jurisdiction as an expressed condition of its creation: "That whenever any [not just ours] Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." "Ends" being securing these rights for all consensually governed men. To repeat, when within the jurisdiction of our government — which was established with the clear understanding that it would HONOR those rights — "all men" RETAIN those rights.
When the Founders meant "citizen," they said "citizen." They believed -- rightly, I trust we agree -- that rights exist whether the revolution succeeded and their preferred government was formed – whether they were “citizens” -- or not. Rights pre-exist, and are independent of any government. "All men are created equal," endowed with rights, and therefore "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted." The word “citizen” occurs only once in the Declaration (and notably, referring to a different government), with the very first mention in the Constitution (which created our current government) being right up top in Article 1, Section 2, where it stipulates that one simply may not participate in the government (not merely enjoy the people’s inherent liberty – not to be confused with "entitlements," of course – that it's intended to protect) unless one is a citizen. They were perfectly aware of the word, and used it where they meant to. They didn't use "citizen" in, say, the 4th Amendment. If you want it to say "citizen," you must amend the Constitution.
If our government does not declare war (and Dr. Paul gave them a clear opportunity, which they notably declined to take), then there can be no (endless) PRISONERS of (an endless) war. Can't have it both ways. That rules out military processes for dealing with these detainees, leaving us with civil, and habeas corpus must apply, just as it must to the subset of "all men" known as "citizens." To "all men" within our government's jurisdiction. What's so threatening about them having their day in court, anyway? What is it we don’t want to hear? Or perhaps more concerning, what is it our GOVERNMENT doesn't want us to hear?
If one prefers the military process, there is a solution, but it's not to pretend that the "ALL men" precondition to the creation of our government doesn't exist. Because there's always a persecuted whimsical subset of "all men," even of "all citizens" — perhaps even intentionally artificially created — to which any one of us can belong, and that 5 in robes can rule. Or just one in a Texas jester cap, for that matter. If King George unilaterally decides to declare you an "enemy combatant" in a perpetual war, with no access to courts or counsel -- ever -- how will you prove otherwise (as if the burden of proof should actually be on you)? Buh-bye, now...
Personally, I'd prefer not having to cope with figuring out what all those subsets could be at any given time. Best just to adhere to the rule of law. "All men." Either we abide by the Constitution -- and the "mission statement" that underlies it -- or we don't. But then, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends..."
Anyway, I see and hear admonitions increasing (again) that voting for one or the other major-party candidate (somehow there's never any other "valid" option) is the only way to save this or that right through their anticipated Supreme Court appointments. This is missing the forest for (equivalently important) selective trees.
The sad truth is that the very same justices who got habeas corpus right, got Heller wrong. And the exact same 4 who got Heller right, got habeas wrong. Only Justice Kennedy managed to apply first principles consistently on the two landmark decisions, both of which thus barely upheld clear Constitutional principles by the absolute slimmest of margins. (My thoughts on Heller are here.)
Until our "leaders" stop learning their reading comprehension skills in government schools -- or until we take George Washington's advice, and eschew political parties and vote only for principle, in which case the "Demoblicans" (I do like that one: it's got "mob" right in it) would be gone right quick -- "We the People" are screwed either way.
The upshot, ironically enough, is that ya might as well vote for principle. And if everyone would...
"ALL men" — not just "citizens," which didn't exist when that was written — are endowed with "certain unalienable rights." Says so right there. "That to secure these rights, Governments [plural and generic, and again, written prior to the creation -- or really any realistic hope thereof -- of ours] are instituted among Men [not just residents of the Colonies], deriving their just powers from the consent of the [respective] governed," with the explicit purpose of protecting those pre-existing rights.
Whether these consenting "Men's" respective governments recognize them or not (or whether our government has the authority to impose them by force on other jurisdictions through the fascistic military-industrial complex with forcibly stolen and inflated taxpayer dollars) is an entirely different matter, but ours is required to recognize them within its jurisdiction as an expressed condition of its creation: "That whenever any [not just ours] Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." "Ends" being securing these rights for all consensually governed men. To repeat, when within the jurisdiction of our government — which was established with the clear understanding that it would HONOR those rights — "all men" RETAIN those rights.
When the Founders meant "citizen," they said "citizen." They believed -- rightly, I trust we agree -- that rights exist whether the revolution succeeded and their preferred government was formed – whether they were “citizens” -- or not. Rights pre-exist, and are independent of any government. "All men are created equal," endowed with rights, and therefore "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted." The word “citizen” occurs only once in the Declaration (and notably, referring to a different government), with the very first mention in the Constitution (which created our current government) being right up top in Article 1, Section 2, where it stipulates that one simply may not participate in the government (not merely enjoy the people’s inherent liberty – not to be confused with "entitlements," of course – that it's intended to protect) unless one is a citizen. They were perfectly aware of the word, and used it where they meant to. They didn't use "citizen" in, say, the 4th Amendment. If you want it to say "citizen," you must amend the Constitution.
If our government does not declare war (and Dr. Paul gave them a clear opportunity, which they notably declined to take), then there can be no (endless) PRISONERS of (an endless) war. Can't have it both ways. That rules out military processes for dealing with these detainees, leaving us with civil, and habeas corpus must apply, just as it must to the subset of "all men" known as "citizens." To "all men" within our government's jurisdiction. What's so threatening about them having their day in court, anyway? What is it we don’t want to hear? Or perhaps more concerning, what is it our GOVERNMENT doesn't want us to hear?
If one prefers the military process, there is a solution, but it's not to pretend that the "ALL men" precondition to the creation of our government doesn't exist. Because there's always a persecuted whimsical subset of "all men," even of "all citizens" — perhaps even intentionally artificially created — to which any one of us can belong, and that 5 in robes can rule. Or just one in a Texas jester cap, for that matter. If King George unilaterally decides to declare you an "enemy combatant" in a perpetual war, with no access to courts or counsel -- ever -- how will you prove otherwise (as if the burden of proof should actually be on you)? Buh-bye, now...
Personally, I'd prefer not having to cope with figuring out what all those subsets could be at any given time. Best just to adhere to the rule of law. "All men." Either we abide by the Constitution -- and the "mission statement" that underlies it -- or we don't. But then, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends..."
Anyway, I see and hear admonitions increasing (again) that voting for one or the other major-party candidate (somehow there's never any other "valid" option) is the only way to save this or that right through their anticipated Supreme Court appointments. This is missing the forest for (equivalently important) selective trees.
The sad truth is that the very same justices who got habeas corpus right, got Heller wrong. And the exact same 4 who got Heller right, got habeas wrong. Only Justice Kennedy managed to apply first principles consistently on the two landmark decisions, both of which thus barely upheld clear Constitutional principles by the absolute slimmest of margins. (My thoughts on Heller are here.)
Habeas Corpus Decision
Pro-liberty
John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy
Anti-liberty
Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito
Heller Decision
Pro-liberty
Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy
Anti-liberty
John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter
Until our "leaders" stop learning their reading comprehension skills in government schools -- or until we take George Washington's advice, and eschew political parties and vote only for principle, in which case the "Demoblicans" (I do like that one: it's got "mob" right in it) would be gone right quick -- "We the People" are screwed either way.
The upshot, ironically enough, is that ya might as well vote for principle. And if everyone would...
Monday, July 7, 2008
Monday, June 9, 2008
In Memoriam...
...of the Republic, dead with the 2008 elections. Sure, there likely won't be much of anything particularly earth-shakingly new following it (assuming King George doesn't declare martial law, of course). Simply more "fetid business as usual." It's not like this isn't the direction we've been headed for a while already.
But with the Presidential field now effectively whittled down to 2 not-an-inflated-dime's-worth-of-difference, more-of-the-same authoritarian collectivist choices, it's clear that the electorate is good with the trend, despite Ron Paul's best "Paul Revere" impersonation...
So, planted today, my memorial to the Republic: "Salix alba 'Tristis'," "Salix Niobe." Appropriately, the Golden Weeping Willow.
But with the Presidential field now effectively whittled down to 2 not-an-inflated-dime's-worth-of-difference, more-of-the-same authoritarian collectivist choices, it's clear that the electorate is good with the trend, despite Ron Paul's best "Paul Revere" impersonation...
So, planted today, my memorial to the Republic: "Salix alba 'Tristis'," "Salix Niobe." Appropriately, the Golden Weeping Willow.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The Manifesto for Revolution
(there used to be a graphic for a Ron Paul "book bomb" above, for https://web.archive.org/web/20080706162957/http://www.ronpaulbookbomb.com/buy/amazon/...)
Saturday, January 19, 2008
The Year of the Patriot
Ok, this is a seriously cool, appropriate, and timely logo...
I want a t-shirt! (Remember, the New England Patriots won the Super Bowl following the 9/11 season, too. One game at a time, though...)
I want a t-shirt! (Remember, the New England Patriots won the Super Bowl following the 9/11 season, too. One game at a time, though...)
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
NH Rejects Liberty
CONCORD, NH - Last night, NH voters, in their "First in the Nation" primaries, chose the status quo over "the animated contest for liberty;" preemptive interventionism over MYOB; warmongering over peace; fascism and collectivism ("We are Borg. You will be assimilated.") over sovereignty; the political machine over original intent; force over freedom; even theocracy over religious liberty for all. Their next objective was not clear at press time.
As I stood, darkly contemplating these implications in the shower this morning, and again as I sat in on legislative hearings with the NH Liberty Alliance in Concord this afternoon, it occurred to me that perhaps Ron Paul's message of liberty didn't actually fail in NH (I'm grasping for a "benefit of the doubt" here, in case it's not obvious). Perhaps, just perhaps, the problem is with the messenger, or more accurately in this case, the delivery boy.
Liberty activists in NH are becoming increasingly effective at getting the correctness, the consistency, the "honor" of the message across to powerbrokers and advocacy groups. But we're still ignoring -- well, perhaps that's too strong a word -- the masses: the far too high percentage of the population that's still so abysmally unaware of the principles and the stakes, of the original design of this Constitutional Republic, who, as NH Public Radio reported last night, still can't make a choice until they're standing in the voting booth. And then with an arbitrary coin flip, they choose McCain and Clinton. Name recognition. Comfy.
*sigh* I certainly don't know what the answer is. But I deeply fear we're rapidly running out of time, and we need to come up with something. Soon. I shudder at the conventional wisdom -- and I do accept it -- that NH is one of the most liberty-minded places in what is continually billed as "the freest country in the world." Empirically, that ain't sayin' much. Not much at all...
1/10/2008: Here's a partial answer. Thanks, Jim...
Monday, January 7, 2008
Ron Paul's Speech at the 2008 NH Liberty Forum
GOP Presidential candidate Congressman Dr. Ron Paul's amazing address to the 2008 NH Liberty Forum, admittedly a friendly audience, 1/6/2008. Watch for the spontaneous ghost of Barry Goldwater. (Yeah, ok: "Jr." But it's still kinda freaky, ain't it...? And no, not when he's introduced.)
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Ron Paul Presence at Fox News GOP Forum
Ron Paul at the 1/6/2008 Faux- er..., Fox News GOP Forum -- in spirit, anyway -- at St. Anselm's College in Goffstown, NH, from which he was banned, 3 days after pulling double digits in the Iowa Caucuses, and 2 days before the NH primaries. Agenda, you say? Noooo...
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Ron Paul on Executive Power
A Discussion on Executive Power with Dr. Ron Paul
Presented by the Federalist Society Chapter of Franklin Pierce Law Center, Concord, NH, 12/19/07
And the Good Doctor on NHPR's "The Exchange" the following morning. I do believe I've never heard Laura quite so contentious...
Presented by the Federalist Society Chapter of Franklin Pierce Law Center, Concord, NH, 12/19/07
And the Good Doctor on NHPR's "The Exchange" the following morning. I do believe I've never heard Laura quite so contentious...
Sunday, November 25, 2007
How to make sense of the Ron Paul revolution
"... Ron Paul may lose next year's battle -- though not without a memorable fight -- but the laissez-faire agitators he has helped energize will find themselves at the leading edge of American politics and culture for years to come."
Precisely. Ask any Free Stater. And Vive La Revolution! Wow. Just... wow...
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Ron Paul Christmas Lights Sign
Ron Paul 2x4 yard sign: Free from campaign HQ
Hardware and strapping: Pennies
LED Christmas lights: ~$40
Ron Paul Christmas Sign: Priceless
Just sendin' it out there...
(Oh, yeah, and it's portable. Look for it in a pickup truck bed near you... };-> )
Hardware and strapping: Pennies
LED Christmas lights: ~$40
Ron Paul Christmas Sign: Priceless
Just sendin' it out there...
(Oh, yeah, and it's portable. Look for it in a pickup truck bed near you... };-> )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)