Month: January 2012

Guns save lives

My home country banned hand guns outright in 1997. Since then handgun crime and violent crime has skyrocketed.

This is reproduced from an article in the Times Online (UK) Sept 8th 2007. The article could be found at; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece . The content needs no comment, as it is entirely self explanatory:

Authored by Richard Munday – editor and co-author of Guns & Violence: the Debate Before Lord Cullen

Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls?

The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects. Virginia Tech, where 32 students were shot in April, had a strict gun ban policy and only last year successfully resisted a legal challenge that would have allowed the carrying of licensed defensive weapons on campus. It is with a measure of bitter irony that we recall Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia, recording the words of Cesare Beccaria: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

One might contrast the Virginia Tech massacre with the assault on Virginia’s Appalachian Law School in 2002, where three lives were lost before a student fetched a pistol from his car and apprehended the gunman.

Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by the law-abiding. New York has “banned” pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain).

America’s disenchantment with “gun control” is based on experience: whereas in the 1960s and 1970s armed crime rose in the face of more restrictive gun laws (in much of the US, it was illegal to possess a firearm away from the home or workplace), over the past 20 years all violent crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Florida set this trend in 1987, and within five years the states that had followed its example showed an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Today 40 states have such laws, and by 2004 the US Bureau of Justice reported that “firearms-related crime has plummeted”.

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.

If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today. In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence.

As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.

Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.

It is very hard to buy any kind of weaponry in England; the same country which set forth the Magna Carta and protected the right to keep and bear arms many hundreds of years ago.

I once went to buy some nunchakus to play with, and I had to sign a form to let the government know that I had purchased them.

In order to buy a shotgun in England, you must take a class and obtain a ‘shotgun license’. You must also purchase an appropriate locking device to keep your gun securely locked inside your home. The local police must stop by and inspect it before you can be granted your license.

This is how far England has fallen from its original freedoms, and that is what I fear for America if we continue to ride along on the collectivist death train.

In this country I have a right to keep and bear arms, and I exercise that right. Since moving here I have acquired several firearms, and I proudly show them off to friends and family when they come to visit. I keep them clean, and take them to the firing range often.

The first gun I ever fired was a 44 magnum. I have my father-in-law to thank for that. My wife and I’s wedding was a whirlwind affair, and I did not know many people in this country. In fact; I knew no-one outside of her family. So the day before our wedding, my father-in-law took me and my dad (my family had flown in for the wedding) to the local firing range. This was his idea of a bachelor party, and considering that at this point I had never fired a handgun before, I was ecstatic. I knew from the Dirty Harry movies that the 44 Magnum had one heck of a kick to it, and that it was still one of the most powerful handguns in the world. So when we entered the range and I held the huge hunk of steel in my hands, I gripped it with all my might, so as not to get smacked in the face when the bullet discharged. I aimed it, with a tight but slightly relaxed grip; anticipating the recoil, I squeezed the trigger; BANG! The gun kicked up with a flash of flame exploding out from the barrel of the gun. I was stunned. I knew that it would have a kick, but it was like firing a shotgun or a large firework right in front of your face with your bare hands. I looked around at my father-in-law with my jaw wide open, and then at my dad with a grin starting to rip at the sides of my mouth. It was exhilarating, and I lined up for my next shot; BANG! Again the gun went off with a mammoth explosion. What a rush! After I had gone through a dozen rounds I handed the gun over to my father-in-law, who put another dozen through it, and then he gave it to my dad, who put another set through it. After that I was hooked for life.

After the better part of a year and much paperwork, I received my green-card; with this I received many of the privileges that Americans enjoy. I was also now able to purchase firearms; so long as I could prove at least six months of residency. The week after I got my green-card, I went to the same firing range to buy my first pistol. After I filled out the paperwork and gave them proof of my residency, I was told I needed to wait a couple of days so that they could run the additional checks. I returned a few days later, and everything was in order. I gave cash for my gun, and the man behind the counter slid my new firearm with its additional clip and re-loader over to me in a nice black hardened plastic box and said ‘Mr Townsend, I hope this firearm serves you well’. With a smile I said ‘thank you’, clipped the box shut and walked out of the range with a grin. I had just exercised my second amendment rights, and I felt exhilarated to do so, especially knowing that none of my friends and family back home even had the right to do so.

I now keep that firearm with me wherever I go, it has indeed served me well. I hope I never have to use it in self defense, but it is there if I should ever need it, and my sovereign rights as an individual shall never be infringed.

Firearms are an important part of freedom. Aside from being a useful deterrent against would-be aggressors, they are also a fun sport to take part in.

Depending on what statistics you read:

Half of all US citizens exercise their rights to own firearms and protect themselves. Indeed, the more people that own guns, the lower the crime rate:

Gun sales up, crime down

As Judge Alex Kozinski accurately stated; ‘the second amendment is a doomsday provision’. It protects individuals from all enemies foreign and domestic. It lets the government know that you the individuals are in charge, and stops the rise of powers such as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, which striped their citizens of the right to bear arms before stripping them of their rights and lives altogether.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

The majority falls prey to the delusion—popular in some circles—that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks’ homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341- 42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they went”). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble. All too many of the other great tragedies of history— Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust,to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here.

See Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99.

If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars. My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the light of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The whole time we have guns, we cannot be taken over by government, and no invading country can ever dominate us. Just take a look at Switzerland, for hundreds of years they have never been invaded because every man is required to own a gun. They also have the lowest crime rate in the entire world.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is protected by The Bill of Rights, second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government.” -Thomas Jefferson

So long as our gun owning rights are not infringed, we will continue to live in a free country, because a gun owning country cannot be ruled over without revolt. It is our god given right to keep and bear arms, and we are the masters of our own domains so long as we do so.

History has shown that a free and law abiding society that owns guns will always be safer than a society striped of its rights to do so. Let us never fall into the same trap that Nazi Germany and Communist Russia fell into. Let us always defend our right to bear arms, and defend our own peace and prosperity. Let us not give criminals the upper hand with gun control laws. Let us carry our guns so that we might protect ourselves if our own sovereignty is challenged.

Throughout history, especially in the 20th century, those law abiding citizens that have kept guns have been proven to save lives.

The Global Warming Myth

Six Years ago Al Gore warned us that the earth was going to heat up, and that if we didn’t start limiting our green house gas emissions; the world would end.

Six years later, the world has not heated up, if anything it has cooled down.

See these sources to see why:

The USA has cooled down

The Coldest Day

14 year timeline

Mr Gore and his friends have made a fortune off CO2 carbon trades, all the while the world continues to pollute more than ever, even though we have plenty of new and ‘green’ technologies.

By making fossil fuels more expensive; you make life harder for most people. Humans naturally want to live life to the fullest and want to live it in comfort. You cannot tell them to live a half life, to live less lavishly, when there are technologies available for them to do so. I want to live my life to the fullest, and I’ll do whatever I have to, to make that possible.

I own a car and two motorcycles. My car has a V6 engine, and my main bike has a V-twin. Both use a lot of gas, and both are very powerful. I like to have power in my vehicles so that I can get out of dicey situations. Having the power at your hands and feet to get out of the way quickly; can save you from disaster. Also, my car is great in the snow during winter, since it is heavy and sticks to the road. It heats up faster, and runs smoother because of the size of its engine. My bike is big enough that my wife can sit comfortably on the back and we can go on trips together.

According to Global warming theorists; I am to be punished with CO2 taxes for having the luxury of taking trips, and of preserving my life by having a large enough vehicle to effectively battle the elements.

Has anyone considered using hydrogen vehicles? Seriously, if we used hydrogen, we would have a viable alternative to gas powered cars with a lot less pollution.

Now I don’t like pollution. It’s dirty, disgusting, and it makes you feel sick. Who really wants to breath in carbon monoxide and smoky CO2 anyway?

I just simply don’t believe in the Global Warming myth because it has been proven to not be true.

http://www.climategate.com/

After all, plants breath CO2, so how can the world end if they are constantly scrubbing the air for us?

If anything, we should be encouraged to grow more trees and plants. How much nicer would our suburbs look with more trees?

As I always say, special interests are at play. The Oil companies don’t want to lose their oil profits, and scammers like Al Gore don’t want to loose their CO2 trading profits either.

I think the real problem in the world is a matter of resources. Which incidentally is the reason for most wars, and incidentally is the reason for the up and coming invasion of Iran.

How much sense does it make to ship oil from the middle east to the US when we are perfectly capable of producing our own oil. And how much sense does it make to ship tonnes and tonnes of products from china that we are perfectly capable of producing ourselves here?

Fiat currency comes into play, and devaluation of other currencies, which makes it cheaper to ship products to other countries rather than produce them at home . These little schemes that ‘the elite‘ have in play right now, will not last forever, and we are starting to seriously deplete resources that should be in abundance.

And why is it that we do not recycle more of our waste? How much sense does it make to fill up a landfill with mostly recyclable material?

Of course, its so much easier to point to the sky and say that the world is going to heat up, and if we don’t confess our sins by paying CO2 taxes, and give money to elitists who waste it on their own guilty pleasures, than actually tackle the real problems.

And so we sit at our tv sets and allow silly shows to morph our minds into pudgy goo, and do not pay attention and stand up to the real problems of our time. And these problems are mounting.

It’s easier to pay attention to a myth than to a reality.

When I was in school, we were taught about deforestation, global warming, greenhouse gasses and the like. I can honestly say that I abhor unnecessary deforestation, but that we do need building materials to build our homes and businesses. Luckily there are such things as tree farms, and just like the food farms of the past, tree farms will become our future.

We can recycle more waste, we can live in harmony with the environment.

I am no tree huger, and I am no mean polluting industrialist. I believe in the future of mankind, I believe in newer and better technologies, I believe the world can be whatever we want it to be.

It does not have to be a filthy place nor a place filled with ti pi’s. We can live in big houses with an abundance of technology, but we must target the special interests and get rid of them. Our world is choking on them.

When we get rid of the special interests; we will have a future.

Bias

I suppose by now I can call myself an online journalist of sorts. I take information from various sources, then research each source and try to find the truth between the articles.

I try to be fair and balanced. There are too many blog sites with crazy lunatic theories with many exclamation points! AND CAPITAL LETTERS, so emphasize their theories. Having studied English literature, I know that this does not appeal to people, and often turns them away.

People want to know what’s really going on, and many see that the media is not telling the whole truth, and even worse, is often completely bias to one political affiliation or another.

I often joke that CNN is the Communist News Network, and FOX stands for Fascism Obsessed Xenophobes. One network is extremely liberal, and the other extremely conservative. I think that certain news anchors do a better job than others, but the bias is so thick it is hard to swallow.

So back to the online community; which now includes Glenn Beck. I agree with many of the things that Glenn says, but sometimes he loses me. I can’t understand why he stands up for liberty and yet will not endorse Ron Paul. I think it has something to do with Israel and his religious beliefs. Personally I put freedom above all else and therefore put this country first.

And then you have infowars.com with Alex Jones. I like listening to him, he keeps me well informed on draconian laws and how the police state is taking over. But he often comes across as a loon also because he is so serious all the time, and makes it look like the boogie man is hiding around the corner.

Then you have whatreallyhappened.com which I love, but sometimes the points of view are somewhat socialist. It’s hard to tell, and there is so much misinformation in the world that it would be easy to get lumped into one group of people or another.

Let me just point out that the last few paragraphs are speculation, and should not be treated as fact. It is a Sunday afternoon, and I’m keeping things quite mellow.

As for bias; I am bias. I am bias toward liberty. I am bias toward freedom. I am bias in these areas because I believe everyone has a right to make a life for themselves, whether it turns out the way they want it to or not, or whether they make good or bad decisions.

The only reason I have become political lately and endorsed Ron Paul is because he is the first and only candidate I have ever seen that endorses liberty, who protects the constitution, who votes to limit taxes and reduce taxes, and who has the best interests of all people at heart. I see that this country is at a crossroads, and it is my duty to help defend the constitution.

I have shown this video a few times now, and it sends shivers down my spine every time I see it. This man, this actor and comedian, spent an entire movie making fun of Adolf Hitler, and at the very end he stood up on the podium of liberty and gave one of the most bone chilling speeches I have ever heard. His words are as powerful and meaningful today as they were back then. In 1940 Hitler had taken over the entire continent of Europe, and collectivism had swept the world, and yet Charlie Chaplin stood up and exclaimed that man was born free and that liberty will never perish:

So long as I have air in my lungs and a keyboard at my fingertips, I will always expose the truth; I will always fight for freedom, because it is the only thing worth fighting for; because without it; we have nothing.

I hope you enjoy this site, I hope you learn from it. I do my best to add as many links as possible so that you can do your own research. There is nothing worse than blindly listening to one person and not figuring out things for yourself.

Abundant Truth is all about exposing the truth and showing an abundance of it. The world will be a better place when people learn the truth and become more tolerant, and like I always say; that starts with the individual. And in that case I am bias.

Ron Paul has the best foreign policy

This posting is for those who believe in fiscal responsibility, who believe in the Republic of the United States, but who are on the fence about voting for Ron Paul.

In my previous posts I have told you what I think about all the other candidates, and I have told you why I like Ron Paul, and only him. So here goes:

For all those who think that Ron Paul has a bad foreign policy. I say: remember what diplomacy is and go read ‘The Art of War’.

Diplomacy (from Latin diploma, meaning an official document, which in turn derives from the Greek δίπλωμα, meaning a folded paper/document) is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations[1] through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, trade, war, economics, culture, environment and human rights. International treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement by national politicians. In an informal or social sense, diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge, one set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational, or polite manner.

Even in a simple game of checkers, if you expose too many of your pieces, the opponent can easily take your pieces and win. During the war of independence, the colonialists were always on the run, and Britain won many battles, and yet the colonialists won. Why is that?

Humans the world over have a desire to be free, they do not like to be told what to do, they certainly don’t like to be forced into submission.

All the countries that we are currently bombing despise us for doing so, and we are creating more and more terrorists by agitating the neighboring countries.

Here is a history on Iran:

Ron Paul accurately claims that 50% of all terrorists come from Saudi Arabia.

For those who say that Iran is a threat to us; how? How will they ever get anywhere near us? Their military is tiny compared to ours. So what if they’re developing nuclear weapons? Our technology is far superior to theirs. Do you not think we could deflect a nuclear attack, if they were ever so stupid to launch one?

I think that the media does a good job of making conservatives out to be warmongers and liberals out to be welfare-mongers. Special interests are always in play, and you must be careful not to be steered into one group or another.

Click here to see why Ron Paul has the only good national defense policy.

So what about Israel? I hear you say. Well what about Israel? Benjamin Netanyahu told us that they are capable of defending themselves.

Think about this: pulling our troops home, means that we have a strong force at home. We still have submarines and aircraft carriers that can circle the world, and we still have friendly alliances with other countries.

Wasn’t it Teddy Roosevelt who said ‘talk softly and carry a big stick’? We have a big stick, we have the most powerful army in the world, but swinging that big stick around constantly will only make us tired and wear us out. It costs billions of dollars to make war and it has warn our economy out.

We must go back to trade and commerce, and learn to get along with other nations no matter what their ambitions may be.

If another country were to be so bold as to attack us or one of our allies, would we not be in a stronger position to launch a counter attack from our home, than from our overstretched troops abroad?

Just look at the Falkland islands, Britain did a very good job taking that land back. And how many countries have invaded their territory since?

War cannot be sustained without a strong and functioning economy. This country is almost bankrupt. We cannot afford to police the world. Our economy is struggling right now, and our debt matches our total GDP for an entire year! How many candidates have a solid plan to fix this? How many candidates are bold enough to make the moves to fix it? As far as I see it; only one!

Eisenhower warned about the military industrial banking complex in his farewell address to the nation:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Look at how the candidates are funded, look at what they talk about, look at how they are dangerously war mongering right now. And tell me his warning has not come true.

The Police State is already taking over

If you want a ball busting president like Newt Gingrich, remember that Adolf Hitler himself was considered a great leader and sought security for his country. Remember that Hitler endorsed the police state in the same way Newt currently is.

How would those of you who blog and speak freely about your current distaste of government; like to have the local militarized police force come knocking on your door and have you sent to a FEMA camp? With all the rising tensions in the world, and the ever more secular government, do you not think our current president or next president (other than Ron Paul) will sign an executive order to detain ‘troublemakers’. Think about all the bills that have been signed in just the last year alone that strip our constitutional rights away.

Oh but we need a strong candidate to beat Obama! I hear you say. Look, Newt, Mitt and Santoram are all special interest establishment politicians. They are all corrupt. They only have the backing of the right wing conservatives. Ron Paul has the military vote, he has the blue democrats vote, he has the independents vote, he has the tea party vote and he has the fiscal conservatives vote.

I suggest that during the republican primaries you vote for morality, vote for freedom, and vote for the constitution.

One person can make a difference. By reading sites like these, by finding out information not given to you by the mainstream media, you are already broadening your horizons. There are many people in this country right now who are hungry for information, hungry to hear the truth, and dying to get started on a path back toward liberty, but do not know where to turn.

By talking to a friend at work, or someone in your social group, who is similar minded to you, you can help show them what Ron Paul is really about, you can show them that he stands for liberty, and when they point out that he has a bad foreign policy, you can turn that argument around and tell them that he actually has the best one of all the candidates out there.

Many senior members of the military agree with Ron Paul on his strategy:

Click here to see why Ron Paul is the BEST national security candidate

Don’t allow yourselves to be divided and conquered by special interests. If you love freedom and independence; unite behind the one man who WILL RESTORE AMERICA NOW

Your vote matters, your opinions matter, your voice matters, talking to your friends and family, standing up for principles and having the courage to point out that the media is wrong and that your family should do their own research; all of this matters.

I have sat down with friends, family and co-workers and told them about Ron Paul, about my experiences in life, in what I’ve learned, and whenever they have presented me with a question I did not know how to answer, I went away and researched it, and told them what I found out the next time I saw them. Sometimes the discussions were heated, but I kept my cool, and asked them as many questions as possible as to why they felt a certain way. Once I told them what I had found out, they tended to listen more intently to be, and began to accept what I told them. The vast majority of them now accept that Ron Paul is the only viable candidate for office of the president, and all are doing their best to spread the word.

We have five full months of campaigning yet to do, and you can reach many people in that time. The battle for freedom is only lost when good men do nothing.

Now the ball is in your court, now you must choose your future.

UPDATE: I just saw this video which really puts things into perspective:

Would you rather vote for Obama?

Will you vote for the lesser of two evils this November, or will you vote for a patriot?

A lot of people would ‘rather vote for Obama’ than vote for Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. And to be honest, I can’t blame them. Newt Gingrich is a globalist and is typical of the corrupt political establishment and Mitt Romney is practically a mirror image of Obama, and may as well be a liberal himself.

The only problem is that voting for the lesser of two evils (no matter if you choose Obama or one of the other two) is still evil.

Does Newt or Mitt portray fiscal conservative values? Do they have a track record to prove it?

Does Obama show a good record of this? That is a silly question since he has doubled the national debt in only three years, but it must be asked since you will have to ask yourself that when you vote.

I have decided to vote for Ron Paul, no matter if he wins the Republican nomination or not. Whether he runs as an independent or I have to write his name in. There are thousands, if not millions who will do so if it comes to it.

A real patriot does not vote for the less of two evils.

To vote for Gingrich or Romney, just to get rid of Obama, will not fix the fundamental flaws this country is currently experiencing. At least with Obama, you know he is an enemy of the constitution. With Gingrich and Romney you get a lot of rhetoric and talking points, but just like George W Bush, you still get the patriot act and other anti-constitutional bills which erode away at the Republic.

You must choose where you stand. Are you a sunny day patriot? Will you vote simply to remove one tyrant from power, just to replace him with another? Will you replace one snake with another snake in sheep’s clothing?

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

And for all those holding off on voting for Ron Paul in the primaries because you have been led to believe that he has a dangerous foreign policy. I will show you tomorrow; why I think he actually has the best foreign policy, and why I think he is our last chance to save the Republic.

Your vote matters, but what matters more is standing for principles. Without principles we are nothing. Our Republic is founded upon beliefs and principles. We must stand for them, even if current tyrants hold power.

The current left/right, liberal/conservative genre is used to divide and conquer us. The last major landslide victory in an election was by Ronald Reagan because he spoke to the middle. Both liberals and conservatives alike loved him because he spoke to the common man, because he spoke of liberty for all.

I do not believe that Newt or Mitt could beat Obama, and even if they did, it would be a shallow victory. Has the Overton Window really shifted so far that we would vote a flip flop liberal conservative or a corrupt political establishment 3 time married fraud into the white house? I think not, I think people would rather vote for Obama. And that is indeed sad.

The lesser of two evils is not good enough anymore, it never was, and now it is more important than ever to stand on principles, no matter what the outcome.

As of right now, Ron Paul is still in the race to become the Republican nominee. It is my sincere hope that he succeeds. If he were to run as an independent and split the vote, and not win the overall election, at least he would cut the power down on both sides, and show the nation that independence is more important than simply picking a side. The Tea Party movement is growing, and more and more people are re-discovering the constitution and voting in ways that represent a smaller and more accountable government.

Liberty will prevail if enough people stick to the cause and see it through, no matter how hard the times ahead.

O! say can you see by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

WWIII, the greatest depression or liberty?

I must admit, I’m not feeling 100% today. Yesterday was a long day at work, and I’ve been reading reports on the escalating sanctions on Iran.

What I see is either the start of WWIII, the greatest depression, or a chance for liberty to regain its strength.

Let me start by saying that Iran is not a threat to the United States. They do not have the capacity to fly anywhere close to us, and certainly not to bomb us. Even if they developed missiles, they would be knocked out of the sky far before they would be able to strike a US city, and only if Iran was crazy enough to actually attempt it.

We have spent over a trillion dollars on multiple wars in the last decade, and have lost over 5000 men. That does not include the other countries losses, nor all the injured men who have returned home, and are unable to rejoin the work force or lead a normal life.

I see that if we start a war with Iran, it will be far more bloody than Iraq and Afghanistan, and it could draw in China and Russia to the conflict, therefore starting world war III. And for what reason? Oil? I mean think about it, of all the real reasons, why not oil? North Korea is developing Nuclear capabilities and we’re not threatening them. Why is it every country we invade is always oil rich, while there are plenty more dictatorships in the world with far more tyrannical laws?

The sad thing is, that even though we may be at peak oil right now, and I think that is the real reason for the forthcoming conflict. Oil is actually in abundance in this country. If it wasn’t for over-regulation, we could be fracking oil in Colorado, which has the largest oil reserves in the world.

Now think about this. If we start war with Iran, and Russia and China don’t get involved. It might not become World War III, but how are we going to pay for the conflict? At 15 trillion dollars, how can we borrow more, without devaluing the dollar further? China may well dump our currency which will crash the dollar, pummel the economy and send us into the greatest depression ever.

The third option is peace. A huge cut in spending, cuts in government departments and de-regulation.

There is only one candidate for the office of president who will lead this country back on that path. No other candidate is talking about these things.

President Obama did not sign the keystone pipeline. This shows that he is not interested in helping this country with its energy crises. And at $3.50 a gallon last time I filled up my car, we are in an energy crises. When gas costs more, everything costs more. And when everything costs more, you are unable to buy as much. When you are unable to buy as much, you don’t go out as much, and the domino effect is that more and more jobs are lost as companies slowly go out of business because people simply cannot afford to go anywhere and do very much.

In order for gas to go down, we need to regain our energy independence and drill/frack more oil here in our country.

I will be writing an article about oil and renewable resources in the coming weeks. But for now, we do need to drill more oil.

This country is at a crossroads. It is said that politics is the art of delaying a decision until it is no longer relevant.

Right now there are a lot of major issues that are very relevant and need to be addressed and acted upon promptly.

See my blog this coming Saturday as to why I think Ron Paul has the best foreign policy, and why I think it would be a very bad decision to attack Iran.

We cannot afford another war, and we cannot keep spending trillions of dollars. The world needs to accept other countries decisions to do what they want to do. Engaging in trade and commerce is a great thing, but sanctions, embargos and the rattling of sabers is not a good idea.

I do not want my generation to become the next ‘lost generation’, I do not want my generation to be thrown into the jaws of war, and I do not want to have to survive my way through a depression when there is an option to revive prosperity.

We are at a crossroads, and it will take many individual voices to help speak the truth and get the message out there. We must preserve liberty and freedom in the world.

Legalize Marijuana; whoa! what?

I don’t do drugs. I never have, and I never will. But I don’t care if you do, just so long as you don’t do it around me.

Saying all that, why don’t we end the war on drugs and legalize pot? With as much as 50% of the entire country having done or doing drugs, I’d say we’ve lost the war on drugs. What an expensive waste of time. You can get drugs on almost any street corner, and it costs you far more than if you were to grow it yourself.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9031855/Its-time-to-end-the-failed-war-on-drugs.html

Marijuana has healing benefits, and hemp creates a strong fiber that can be used to make clothes.

So why don’t we legalize pot, put a tax on it, the same as for alcohol and tobacco, and let people smoke it.

But everyone will be on drugs! Oh the humanity!

Well that is an interesting scare tactic, because many European countries allow open possession and use of marijuana, and they have the lowest usage of the drug in the world. This is because it is not taboo, and they see no need to feel rebellious and smoke it. Just look at how the stricter alcohol laws have made teens more susceptible to over-drinking in this country.

But its immoral!!!! I hear you scream.

Look, you cannot legalize morality. This is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Not the home of the morality by law social police state.

Morality starts in the individual, then in relationships, in the family, in your home, in your neighborhood. Once people start to remember morality again, they will teach their children and talk to their neighbors about the side effects of drugs, and how it is irresponsible to get high all the time.

So why not strike down the federal law, make it a state issue, slowly introduce it, manufacture and tax it, and stop the wasteful war on drugs. It will end many of the crimes being committed in the US, and stop the violence along the Mexico border.

And for all those who say production will slow down, take a minute to remember that we’re in a recession. I think the real reason a lot of people are afraid of making it legal is because they are afraid people will not show up to work, and will cause traffic accidents. And to this I say that an employer can refuse to let the employee in if he/she is ‘high’. And if the said person who causes a wreck is ‘high’, they should be prosecuted the same way as a drunk would be if they caused a wreck.

Wouldn’t it be better to allow those who want to do it, a cheaper way to do it, so they can spend more of their money on legitimate products such as video games and televisions, rather than waste a huge sums of money to some shady drug dealer? Wouldn’t this actually boost the economy? Especially considering that so many people do marijuana right now anyway.

Think about it; making it a state issue puts it in the hands of the people of each individual state, so some can outright ban it, and some can introduce it as legal. By making it legal we eliminate the violence on the Mexican border, free up more individuals money to spend on legitimate products and help boost economy, and we get people to wake up and realize that they need to take their lives into their own hands and take care of themselves, not expect to be taken care of by the nanny state.

Also you must look at how marijuana is being used to introduce more and more  anti-consitutional laws. Such as the Indiana police now being able to break into someones home because they ‘smell marijuana’. Just think of the corruption this  causes.

Laws that are created to help people save them from themselves often backfire, and are then used to create more authoritarian rules that put the lives of others in jepordy. This war on drugs has helped to create the police state, and has helped militarize the police, in a similar way to Nazi Germany in the 1930’s.

I do not endorse the use of drugs, in fact I have a strong distaste for anyone who uses them. I don’t mind if you use them because I am a libertarian at heart and beleive that you have the right to your own body. But that does not mean that I will approve on a moral level of what you do. I will still tell you that drugs are bad mmkay?

I’d like to hear your opinions. Please try to be open minded, I see that one of the biggest problems in this country is that everyone is afraid to manufacture anything. The attitude is that pot is bad so it should be banned. So much is regulated, and no one is allowed to produce anything without vast sums of regulations and paperwork getting in the way.

Keep an open mind, and think about the future. It is up to the individual to rule his own life, not the police state, no matter how bad that person chooses to live their life.

I am all for allowing the individual to succeed or fail, and I do not want a police state dictating to me or anyone else their right to do so.