I don’t care about New York’s Weiner!!!

Progressive Libertarian Movement
By: Susan Spaulding Cassidy
Weds. June 8th 2011

I am sorry, but I could care less about yet another politician behaving badly. My libertarian views go beyond politics. I believe that people have choices to make every day, and will face negative or positive consequences as a result of those choices. Weiner is no different. I don’t know what his wife will do after this, that’s her business, and she will face the consequence of her choice. I don’t know what his constituents will do, that’s theirs, and again their consequence to deal with. I don’t care if he resigns, and I’m certainly not shocked that he hasn’t. Should I have expected a man of his apparent lack of morals and judgement to turn around and do something that requires a strong sense of character and personal integrity? Um, no.

What do I care about? I care about the fact that five American soldiers were killed yesterday. I care about the fact that when I drive down Glenway Ave, I pass far too many empty buildings that used to contain a business with employees. I care about the fact that our government has reached an historic $61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. I care that this breaks down to over $500,000 per American household. I care that everyone can articulate the problem, but demonizes anyone that offers a solution.

And what of Anthony Weiner and his ilk? I care that the people of New York can vote in someone and then I get stuck with him. They probably feel the same way about Steve Chabot. I care that we continually are asked to give up more freedoms and money to people in Washington so that they can fix stuff, and then they just break it more. Is Weiner a better steward of my hard-earned money than I am? Should he decide what type of lightbulb I can purchase? Why did he have any say in MY Chrysler dealership closing? Has he acquired some vast knowledge that I should look to when deciding how I will feed my children? in how I should care for my family? my neighbors? Um, no.

James Madison…”If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Well, Weiner is certainly no angel. And it’s not like his case is an isolated incident, nor are those incidents contained on one side of the aisle.

I believe in the American experiment of self-government. I understand that we must give up some of our freedom in order to have an effective government, but I feel we’ve not only given up too much, but those we’ve relinquished our freedoms to are not about to stop taking more anytime soon. As long as there is a wrong to be righted, a national problem to fix, another country’s dictator behaving badly, there will be Weiners ready to rise up and shout, “elect me, I will handle it! I will make it all better. I will keep you safe, fed, and comfortable.” When Franklin was asked if we had a Republic or a monarchy, his response was….”a republic, if you can keep it.” We’ve kept it for over 200 hundred years, and I pray that we will not be enticed by the Weiners in public office to give it away.

http://www.ronpaulcc2012.com/
http://www.youtube.com/RonPaulCC2012
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ron-Paul-Constitutionally-Correct-For-President-2012/201550256535151

Ron Paul Gains Fans in New York Bartenders and Servers

My FOX New York

By DIANA ROCCO

Updated: Tuesday, 07 Jun 2011, 8:34 AM EDT
Published : Monday, 06 Jun 2011, 10:58 PM EDT

MYFOXNY.COM - At the Spring Lounge in the East Village in New York the drinks are flowing and politics is the topic of conversation -- specifically, Ron Paul -- a Republican congressman from Texas -- has been the focus.

Paul, who is running for president again, seems to be gaining momentum with bartenders and wait staff. The congressman has introduced a bill called the Tax Free Tips Act of 2011, which would make gratuities to servers tax free.

A group called the Ron Paul NYC Liberty HQ is using bar crawls to get to their target constituents.
Volunteers say the bill highlights inconsistencies in tax laws and would put more money in the pockets of struggling workers.

Bartenders say the failing economy and strict tax laws have affected their take home pay, and the government is counting every dollar.

Ron Paul Gains Fans in New York Bartenders and Servers: MyFoxNY.com

http://www.ronpaulcc2012.com/
http://www.youtube.com/RonPaulCC2012
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ron-Paul-Constitutionally-Correct-For-President-2012/201550256535151

Ron Paul Raises $1.1 Million In Sunday Money Bomb

Prison Planet.com
Monday June 6th 2011

Supporters of Congressman Ron Paul raised over $1.1 million and counting yesterday  in a 2012 presidential campaign “money bomb”.

The fundraising effort was themed as “The Revolution vs Romneycare”, in a move to highlight the fact that establishment GOP rival Mit Romney recently received a $10 million windfall from his “bailed-out banker buddies on Wall Street”, as Ron Paul referred to them.

In an email to his supporters the Libertarian Congressman wrote:

“Establishment candidates are revving up their campaigns and trying to blow the field away with massive fundraising totals,” the email stated. “These influence peddlers want to install a different conductor on the Big Government gravy train.”

“His liberal record – RomneyCare and his ever-shifting positions – leaves the media-anointed frontrunner with political liabilities.” the Congressman stated, urging the freedom movement to take advantage.

The Congressman’s previous  money bomb in February for his political action committee raised around $700,000.

http://www.ronpaulcc2012.com/
http://www.youtube.com/RonPaulCC2012
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ron-Paul-Constitutionally-Correct-For-President-2012/201550256535151

Thanks to Ron Paul, We Are All Libertarians Now

Lew Rockwell
By Susan Westfall
Monday June 6th 2011

Recently, I was asked to explain whether or not it was "a common libertarian belief that any government is bad." This sticking point was one that in the questioners' own words caused them to "lose interest," and despite being "in agreement with a lot of libertarian thinking...talking about deregulating everything," turned them off. I was asked this because of my support for and recent article about Ron Paul, who despite decades of serving as a Republican Congressman, is still consistently labeled as a libertarian in almost every media interview with him or discussion about him. The subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, implication by the media is that either the word libertarian in and of itself (or perhaps just the idea of being a libertarian) is somehow not quite right, maybe even unacceptable, and most certainly not electable.

At this point I would like to make it clear that the people posing their questions seemed genuinely concerned with simply understanding better the issue of greatly reducing the size of government and not with deriding libertarianism. In fact, they assured me that they "like a lot of libertarian principles," but deregulation and "pursuing an idealized notion of a free market," is not an answer they understand and this, I assume, could affect their vote in 2012. However, their wording of the overarching question first asked shows how successful the media campaign against libertarian ideals over the years has been. The application of the label "libertarian" to someone's political character these days insinuates that said person is not only promoting an absence of any government whatsoever, but is almost eagerly awaiting the advent of anarchy and its chaotic and bloody results. Somalia is often used to demonstrate how such kooky libertarian ideals will end.

Libertarians, as with any other group, have beliefs that are wide and varied. I won't pretend to know them all, or purport to having done a deep or intensive study of the matter. "Libertarian ideas are like stones dropping into a body of water, making waves in so many directions that no one is sure where they come from," says Lew Rockwell in The Case for Libertarian Hope. An exact list of what libertarians believe in, stand for, or wish to attain might theoretically be compiled, but in reality would not be applicable to all its advocates. That said, there are at least two basic concepts that appear to be foundational to libertarianism: individual liberty and doing no harm. Everything else, in my opinion, is just extrapolation and lends to a general confusion that inevitably dilutes their strength.

Individual liberty is based on two concepts: life and property. Your life and your property are yours, and yours alone. You are free to do with them what you will, as long as you don't harm another with your doings. We exercise the choices we make regarding life and property through an ideal held dear by ALL people, no matter the political or religious label attached to them: that of free will. We choose what to eat and drink, where to live and how, what to think and believe, who to befriend or not, whether to be honest or lie, if we will act morally or immorally...the list could fill tomes. All individuals, regardless of race or gender, are born with this gift by which, at the very least, they are able to think, rationalize, and create. It is an accepted fact that free will is dictated by no person other than the one exercising it. If people are religious, they exercise their free will to adhere to God's laws. However, I doubt any of them seriously believe that a bolt of lightening will shoot out of the Walmart ceiling tiles to strike them dead should they decide to shoplift. God does not compel mankind through force to follow His laws regarding morality, the treatment of fellow man, or any other of His dictates. God gifts mankind with individual liberty and extolls us to use it to exercise our free will, follow His guidance, and choose wisely in all things. If we choose unwisely, we and we alone will suffer the consequences – not our parents, not our neighbors, and not the rich people who have more than us. Does government then deem itself more powerful, more all-knowing than God? It must. Through legislation written by Congress the federal government: denies us the liberty to exercise our free will and dictates our choices for us; takes our wealth through taxation and redistributes it to others; and forces us to comply with its dictates through threats of imprisonment and/or fines. Pretty presumptuous, not to mention overbearing. As Ron Paul is fond of saying, "It makes no sense whatsoever." It makes even less sense to label people who believe in the right of individual liberty to exercise free will as kooks, anarchists, or extremists.

So since government is most assuredly not God, what is the role and purpose of government? Thankfully, we have a document that lays out just exactly those things. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates specifically the 21 duties the federal government is authorized to perform. Unfortunately, the legislative branch ignores it, the executive branch appends it, the judicial branch undermines it, the States are remiss in their duty to guard against all of the latter, and the people have forgotten that they ARE the government. So instead of a Constitutional Republic that would restrain bureaucracy, protect liberty, and enforce laws, we now have a 'democracy' that is so gargantuan in size that it is unsustainable. One grows dizzy trying to count the number of departments, programs, bureaus, divisions, sub-departments, and offices instituted to enact all the unconstitutional legislation written over the last one hundred years to regulate and restrain the people. But will Congress cut it back? Not unless the people insist, and too many still don't understand that most of what government does is not really beneficial, but in actuality detrimental to the peoples' well-being and in direct opposition to the general welfare of their Republic.

The mere mention of cutting government back to a Constitutional, and thus affordable size, gives rise to immediate cries of doom, gloom, and destruction. Without the benign munificence of whatever sacred department or program targeted for removal it is intimated that: old people will be dropping like flies in the streets; no one will have a home; all our children will starve; the country will be overcome with unbearable pollution; everyone will die from poisoned food and bad medicine; and so on till the cows come home. Used to fuel the peoples' fears and maintain the status-quo, reporters seldom question whether any of these programs or departments are efficient or even worthy of expending scarce tax dollars on. Take for example the Environmental Protection Agency. This hallowed body purports to protect us from polluting corporations through tough regulations without which, supposedly, America would be wallowing in untold amounts of toxic pollution and all life would perish. In reality, its very policies often encourage corporations to continue polluting. If it costs less to pay a fine for polluting than it does to make renovations needed to meet regulation standards, then corporations will pay the fines and continue polluting. The government collects the fine money, no reform occurs, and the pollution continues on for years. What marvelous protection! If the EPA really wanted to protect the environment by enforcing tough regulations, there would be no optional fine payments or the fines would exceed renovation costs. And why do we need an agency for this anyway? Constitutionally, that's what the court system is for...to protect property from pollution or any other damage and to fairly decide compensation and punishment. Strictly and properly enforced court decisions would soon force corporations to curtail bad habits they are now actually encouraged to continue, by the very same agency supposedly protecting us.

Another fine example of government proficiency is the Food and Drug Administration. It ensures that we have safe medicines and food. Right? Surely it's worth the expended dollars to keep us safe from death and injury. Economist Randall Holcombe begs to differ. "The policy experts who have evaluated the costs and benefits of drug regulation have almost uniformly concluded that the costs of the regulations are not worth their benefits," quotes Thomas Woods in his book Rollback. Shouldn't we at least listen to these experts on FDA policy? It's not like, as Mr. Woods says, "a free people would...stand around scratching their heads...[wondering] what to do about [food and] drug safety." He proposes, and rightly so, that private firms such as Underwriters Laboratories could easily take over the job of informing customers of safe products, and at no cost to the taxpayer. In addition, at recent hearings on the Hill arguments were heard regarding the FDA's over-regulation of medical devices and an approval process that stifles innovation. Once again we find government is not always efficient. Why expend tax dollars on something private companies and the market could probably do better?

Even if people don't always agree why, in light of the fact that there is simply no money to continue funding them, the need to cut many of these regulating bodies is fast becoming an accepted norm. However, since the answer to the question "But, but how would we protect everyone?" is often the free market, another hurdle is quickly rolled out by the media for people to stumble upon. Horrors! The free market is the harbinger of all disasters that have befallen us, both old and new. As such we certainly can't trust it to regulate anything. Hogwash! "The free market" has not been free since 1913, when the FED began centrally planning our economy and intervening in the market. Any intervention in the market disrupts the natural balance maintained by demand and production. The market, if left to operate free of restrictions, reflects real consumer demands for goods and services. This in turn is used to set the price of goods based on ease and speed of production. If we understand that economic value can only be placed on an object based on whether consumers need or want it enough to pay for it, and that needs and wants change arbitrarily with social circumstances and can't be predicted accurately, then the idea that any regulating body could possibly out-perform the natural balance the market achieves is ludicrous. As soon as any restrictions are placed on the market, either through legislative regulations or central planning controls, the balance shifts away from the consumer towards the producer. This imbalance quickly leads to big businesses and corporations rapidly beating a path to Congress to purchase special favors that will benefit them, but never their consumers. No wonder government jumped so quickly into the Keynesian fueled vehicle for intervention provided by his scientific rational for central economic planning. It placed them firmly in the driver's seat, big producers in the back seat paying the fare, and consumers in the trunk...if they were lucky. More often than not the consumers find themselves choking on dust at the road side. "The free market protects consumers and restrains government and big business," Ron Paul articulates when asked how free markets could protect us. Big government advocates were more than happy to throw off those restraints and invite their cronies along for the ride.

The federal government's role in the market is to ensure that trade in goods produced remains regular and unrestricted between whatever parties want to have commerce, and to enforce and uphold contracts between those parties. It is not to control through legislation what can be produced in the name of regulating commerce. Nor is it, or has it ever been, to legislate into being an entity to plan the economy for the general welfare of the people. Intervention in the free markets by government created bodies based on Keynes's theory for central planning is the actual harbinger, and true culprit, of all our present woes. This understanding is becoming clearer to people, and is evidenced by a growing resurgence of belief in the idea that more government seldom translates to better government. One need not believe in any particular political theory to find the idea of smaller government attractive. In fact conservatives, republicans, constitutionalists, independents, and tea party people, as well as many dreaded libertarians, easily find common ground in advocating for smaller government. When asked about the size of government recently on the Diane Rehm show, Ron Paul commented, "[It should be] as small as possible." During that interview he further explained, "There is nothing wrong with describing conservatism as protecting the Constitution, protecting all things that limit government. Government is the enemy of liberty. Government should be very restrained." Growing support at the polls for Dr. Paul demonstrates that people are not finding his defense of liberty and small government such unacceptable ideas, despite his being labeled a libertarian by the media. In fact, judging by how frequently we now hear similar platitudes pass the lips of many a politician who previously derided Ron Paul for his stance, I would say his ideas are very acceptable to a majority of people. So much so that it seems quite sensible to proclaim that, "If we believe in having the liberty to exercise our free will and if we believe in smaller government, then perhaps we are all libertarians now."

http://www.ronpaulcc2012.com/
http://www.youtube.com/RonPaulCC2012
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ron-Paul-Constitutionally-Correct-For-President-2012/201550256535151

Ron Paul leads Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney in Republican (book) race

Los Angels Times
By Carolyn Kellogg
Thursday June 2nd 2011



Mitt Romney announced Thursday that he's running for the Republican nomination for president. The entry has been long expected from the former Massachusetts governor. Several high-profile Republicans -- including Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul -- have already hit the campaign trail. Others who are less well-known, like former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, have also gotten an early start.

And then there's Sarah Palin, who is traveling by bus to campaign-ready states -- she's attending a New Hampshire clambake Thursday -- though she has not yet announced her intention to run.

Can the popularity of the candidates' books signal how well they'll do with the American public? Jacket Copy looked at how the hardcover editions of their books were faring at Amazon.com at midday Thursday, after Romney's announcement. Despite his news, Romney's book falls short. It's Ron Paul who has captured readers' attention -- his "Liberty Defined" has the highest ranking of all the candidates' books at No. 337 overall on Amazon.

If current book sales rankings were votes, Paul would lead, with Palin second and Romney third. Here's a comparison of GOP contenders as authors:

1. Ron Paul, "Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom" published April 2011. Amazon rank: 337
2. Sarah Palin, "America By Heart: Reflections on Faith, Family and Flag" published Nov. 2010. Amazon rank: 9,193
3. Mitt Romney, "No Apology: Believe in America," published Feb. 2011. Amazon rank 16,639
4. Herman Cain, "They Think You're Stupid: Why Democrats Lost Your Vote and What Republicans Must Do to Keep It" published May 2005. Amazon rank: 45,728
5. Newt Gingrich, "To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine" published May 2010. Amazon rank: 71,027
6. Tim Pawlenty, "Courage to Stand: An American Story" published Jan. 2011. Amazon rank: 73,198

Gary E. Johnson doesn't appear on the list; his website is currently down, but I don't think he's published a book. Let's qualify that with a "yet."

The surprise might be that Gingrich's book lags so far behind Cain's. Gingrich has had more exposure on the campaign trail, is a known author and his book is new; Cain's was published six years ago. Maybe he's a candidate to watch.

-- Carolyn Kellogg

http://www.ronpaulcc2012.com/
http://www.youtube.com/RonPaulCC2012
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ron-Paul-Constitutionally-Correct-For-President-2012/201550256535151

Ron Paul: A True Choice For 2012

Ron Paul is Only Presidential Candidate Who Will Bring Troops Home, the Only Candidate  Who has Guts to Speak His Truth and the Only Candidate who Stands Up to Lobbyists, Corporations and the Federal Reserve. He’s My Guy for President

by Allen L Roland

VT Veteran's Today
Weds. June 1st 2011

Truth seeker and truth speaker Ron Paul, the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve demanded yesterday that the Fed fully disclose details of billions ~ perhaps trillions ~ in secret emergency loans it made to almost every major bank in the U.S. and overseas during the financial crisis or face a congressional subpoena for the information.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee on domestic monetary policy, said he wants to know “how much, when, where and why” from Fed officials when they testify about the loans at a subcommittee hearing today.

It’s finally Ron Paul’s turn ~ the majority of Americans are fed up with politics as usual, Obama’s broken promises and a government that answers to Wall Street and the corporate elite at the expense of Main Street and a rapidly vanishing middle class.

Political apathy reigns and myself and millions of Americans long for a genuine political truth teller who will not only bring our troops home from our illegal occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan but will take on the lobbyists, corporations and above all the consistently wrong and secretive Federal reserve. I am convinced that person is Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul.

To me the deciding factor is not party affiliation, since both parties have sold out to corporate interests ~ the deciding factor is integrity and Ron Paul stands tall in that category against all comers ~ especially Barack Obama.

Thanks to the magic of this ten minute must see video tape we can see what the economic geniuses at the Fed and CNBC were saying about the future back in 2005. It would be a comedy if it weren’t for all the people who believed them and drank the Kool aid, including Obama, but there were a few who did not and were absolutely right. One of them was Peter Schiff ( President Euro Pacific Capital ) who correctly warned of the debt bubble and coming recession and the other was Congressman Ron Paul who directly took on Wall Street stooge and Fed chief Ben Bernanke and asked the tough questions ~ which he is still doing.
Video

As Walter Block effectively explains in The Maroon ~ “If Ron Paul can somehow win the presidential nomination of the Republican Party, he will have an excellent chance of beating President Barack Obama in November 2012. He will, of course, face great obstacles in the Republican primaries, but if he can overcome them, it ought to be all downhill after that.
Why will the congressman from Texas have a good shot at beating a sitting president during wartime?
Paul can out-left Obama on foreign policy and personal liberties, thus making gigantic inroads on the latter’s progressive base while at the same time maintaining his right-wing credentials on economics.”  See article 

Don’t make the mistake of taking Ron Paul lightly. As my progressive friend Richard Scheck correctly says ~ “Ron Paul represents the best hope for those who considers themselves on the left.  He is anti-war, anti WTO, anti-Wall Street while being pro-growth and pro-civil liberties.”

In case anyone needs a reminder of what an epic train wreck Obama has been
for the nation, here’ a short video that sums it all up. Obviously, it was made by a Ron Paul supporter but it effectively cuts to the chase. Video 

The Progressives could well have their champion in Ron Paul and rise from the grave where Obama buried them, with his false promises, over the past three years. I for one am fed up with Obama’s imperial presidency!

Here’s a 9 minute CNBC May 31st interview with Ron Paul where he answers some very intelligent questions and effectively explains why he should be president and that his ideas are really mainstream. Video

Join the Revolution and take back our Republic 

Allen L Roland

Freelance Alternative Press Online columnist and psychotherapist Allen L Roland is available for comments, interviews, speaking engagements and private consultations ( allen@allenroland.com ) 

Allen L Roland is a practicing psychotherapist, author and lecturer who also shares a daily political and social commentary on his weblog and website allenroland.com He also guest hosts a monthly national radio show TRUTHTALK on  www.conscioustalk.net

http://www.ronpaulcc2012.com/
http://www.youtube.com/RonPaulCC2012
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ron-Paul-Constitutionally-Correct-For-President-2012/201550256535151

Ron Paul goes inside Beltway for HQ

Politico
By Dan Hirschhorn
Weds. June 1st 2011

To the plethora of presidential hopefuls basing their campaigns far outside the Beltway, add one exception: Ron Paul.

The Texas congressman, who formally announced his presidential campaign last month, will put its headquarters in Springfield, Va., his political adviser Jesse Benton told POLITICO. Paul chose proximity to Washington to facilitate his involvement in the political operations while doing his day job in Congress. Also, Benton said, much of the growing campaign staff lives in or around Washington.

Another office for the campaign's mostly-online financial operation will based in Clute, Texas.

Paul's 2008 campaign was based just across the Potomac River from Washington, in Arlington, Va.

http://www.ronpaulcc2012.com/
http://www.youtube.com/RonPaulCC2012
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ron-Paul-Constitutionally-Correct-For-President-2012/201550256535151