Solid Education on the Constitution

After returning from a trip to New England last fall, which included seeing Boston and Plymouth Rock, I became more interested in how the constitution came to be and how it relates to my own English history. I decided to start the Hillsdale College Constitution 101 course shortly after Thanksgiving and earlier this week I completed the course after studying all 10 lessons and taking the final quiz.

One of the things I learned in the class was how effective America’s constitution is and how England doesn’t have one. Britain does not have a codified constitution. It is considered a living constitution that can be updated with the times. This may sound good but it isn’t. The progressives once sought a living constitution when England was at its height of empire. However the living constitution and rise of socialism led to its undoing. Today England is experiencing Orwellian crackdowns on free speech and its citizens are unable to defend themselves. The American founding fathers made sure checks and balances were set in stone with the constitution. It is not a living document.

While there may be many issues in America today, the reasons why we are still able to have free speech and defend ourselves can be found in the writings from the founding fathers and how republican American government was set up to protect individual liberty.

The Hillsdale College Constitution 101 course teaches us about why the constitution is important and why the founders set up the American system as a large Republic. They also explain the three crises in American government; the revolution and inception of the constitution. Slavery and civil war. And the ongoing battle against progressivism, which we are still fighting today.

I would highly recommend the course for all Americans.

 

How socialism led to the French massacre

There is so much wrong with socialism that it would be impossible to explain all the details as to how it led to the French massacre in one article. There are three brief points however, that I do want to make with this article.

Gun Control

I’ve written about Gun Control before, and how it only disarms the victims. Those countries without gun control have the lowest crime rates, while those with the tightest gun control only ever see a rise in violent crime. Not only could the workers at Charlie Hebdo not carry weapons, knowing full well that their lives were threatened by Islamic extremists, but even the poor police officer who tried to help was powerless because he too did not have a weapon. Had he been issued a pistol, he could have returned fire on these terrorists, instead of laying there, pleading for his life, before being mercilessly executed.

Immigration without assimilation

The idea that all are welcome, and do not need to show anything for it. When I emigrated to the US, I took the steps to becoming a citizen. After swearing my oath of allegiance, I did everything I could to guard that oath, to protect and defend the US  Constitution. I did everything I could, and still do, to blend in and to participate in American society. I try to make American values my own. I try to live up to the founding fathers vision. Do you think the Islamic terrorists, who themselves were French citizens, tried to live up to French values? Did they try to fit in? Did they try to participate in French society? Their actions show that they did none of this.

Political correctness

It’s no use calling them ‘crazed gunmen’. As if it’s the guns that are the problem. It’s no use calling it a ‘deadly attack’ when it is indeed a terrorist attack. It’s no use trying to protect or appease Muslims. No, not all Muslims are violent, but these men were radical Islamist extremists. They were terrorists. They should be labeled as such.

It is sickening to hear the mostly leftist media trying to cover for the Muslims. It is shocking to see that they are more concerned with back lash against Muslims, than upset with the brutal murder of innocent people. It is ludicrous to compare these atrocities to a lawsuit from the 1980’s.

There is a problem in Europe, and particularly in France with a Muslim population growing within their country. The problem is not the Muslims themselves, but the extreme faction within their religion, which has been allowed to percolate because politicians and left wing media alike do not want to call the pot black, and tell the truth.

If It hadn’t been for gun control, immigration without assimilation, and political correctness, these attacks would likely not have happened at all.

I hope that the French people can throw off the shackles of socialism, and pacify the radical Islamists in their country without turning to violence.

Lower taxes, increased gun rights, and better integration of immigrants would go a long way to solving their problems.

It is a sad week for France. My thoughts go out to all the families who lost loved ones by the acts of these barbarous Islamic terrorists.

Charlie

https://grrrgraphics.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/today-we-draw-for-charlie-hebdo/

To any French readers out there:

Cette semaine nous sommes tous Charlie.

I weep for Mother England

Just a few decades ago England was caught up in the wrath of socialism. Almost everything was nationalized. The coal industry, the gas industry, rail, telecom, you name it, it was all owned and operated by the UK government. Britain was in deep decline, its Empire packing up, its debts soaring, it truly was ‘the sick man of Europe’.

Then came along Margaret Thatcher, who turned socialism on it’s head, privatized the major industries, sold off government owned homes and put Britain back on track toward prosperity. What a decade the 80’s were, and what a decade the 90’s were, riding on the previous decade’s coattails.

Alas, after 11 1/2 years of Thatcher, and 18 years of conservative government, along came the socialists with their ‘New Labour’. House prices soared, gas prices soared, and many, including myself fled in despair.

After 13 years of socialism, Britain was beginning to fail again, and while there is now a coalition government headed by the conservatives, these politicians are weak kneed and not nearly as principled as they need to be. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister has said that he does not have many convictions, and is a ‘liberal conservative’. This is the man that stands against a far greater threat to British sovereignty; the rise of ‘Red Ed’ and his Marxist policies. Ed Milliband, the leader of the Labour party, has pledged to re-nationalize industries, and punish those that make a profit. His ideology stems from his father, who was a preacher of the philosophy of Karl Marx, and who is indeed buried in the same cemetery, only a few feet from his beloved (albeit insanely wrong) prophet.

Back to the future with Marxist Miliband: If Britain falls for Ed’s socialist farce, it really will be a tragedy 

By RICHARD LITTLEJOHN

PUBLISHED: 17:06 EST, 23 September 2013 | UPDATED: 17:26 EST, 23 September 2013

So now we know Ed Miliband’s master plan. He wants to bring back socialism. No great surprise there, then.

Miliband’s late father was one of Britain’s most prominent Marxist ‘intellectuals’. In other words, he was spectacularly wrong on every single major issue.
 
My old man’s a Marxist,
He wears a Marxist’s hat,
He wears old corduroy trousers,
And he lives in a £2 million flat.
(In Primrose Hill).

Pity Ralph Miliband isn’t still alive. I’d have loved to hear his views on Labour’s proposed ‘mansion tax’. But clearly some of his discredited ideas have rubbed off on his youngest son.

Whatever’s wrong with modern Britain, the solution isn’t socialism. We tried that and look where it got us.

I’m not talking about the blood-soaked socialism which led to gulags and genocide in Eastern Europe and China. Or the sociopathic socialism which has turned North Korea into a Mad Hatter’s prison camp.

Let’s consider the particularly British brand of socialism, which still has plenty of devoted disciples in the Labour Party, including its weird leader.

The idea that the State could and would provide has been tested to destruction. Rampant socialism turned post-war Britain into a bankrupt basket case.

Nationalisation robbed industry of the incentive to modernise. For decades, Britain turned its back on the free market economics which once made us the richest nation on earth.

Unions exercised a stranglehold on the means of production and distribution. In the name of the ‘workers’, stroppy shop stewards called strikes at the drop of a hat.

Most of the union leaders on parade in Brighton this week salivate at the prospect of turning the clock back to that era of debilitating, daily disruption.

When I was covering British Leyland in the 1970s, there was a grand total of 27 separate strikes across the company on a single day. When the toolmakers went back to work, the delivery drivers walked out. At Longbridge, workers on the night-shift were literally sleeping on the job.

Billions of pounds of public money was poured into subsiding products no one wanted to buy. 

I’ve written before about the taxpayer-funded excesses at British Steel. On the day the corporation’s chairman, Mr Pastry-lookalike Sir Charles Villiers, announced a record £1 billion loss, he threw open the doors to the executive dining room and invited Fleet Street’s finest to join him in a sumptuous feast from an all-you-can-eat buffet, groaning with suckling pigs, whole salmon, roast sirloins of beef and vintage claret.

 

Still, what’s a couple of grand on a jolly-up when the taxpayers  are already lumbered with a  billion-pound tab?

And what was the upshot of all this largesse at the public’s expense? British Steel and British Leyland both went bust because they couldn’t withstand the chill winds of foreign competition.

Back then, it took six months to get the Post Office to install a telephone in your home. Try telling that to a generation who upgrade their mobiles every five minutes.

If you wanted a cooker, you could buy one only from the nationalised electricity or gas boards and then wait obediently until they could be bothered to hook it up. 

Council tenants couldn’t even paint their front doors without permission in triplicate from a gauleiter at the local authority. 

Had Labour won the 1979 election, inefficient, loss-making coal mines would still be open and Arthur Scargill would be sitting in the House of Lords. At least we might have been spared all those hideous wind farms cluttering up the countryside.

Commuters moan about the private rail companies, but if the railways had remained nationalised they’d still be running filthy, dilapidated rolling stock and Bob Crow’s RMT union would be on strike most of the time.

Old Labour presided over a siege economy. At one stage, you weren’t allowed take more than £50 out of the country when you went on holiday. The top rate of tax was 97 per cent, the standard rate 35 per cent. Someone had to pay for all this glorious socialism.

Mrs Thatcher changed all that. The 1997 New Labour government was forced to accept her settlement. But the Left resented Thatcher with a toxic hatred, which came bubbling to the surface when she died.

The hardline socialists didn’t disappear, however. They simply mutated into local government and the institutions.

Those organisations still under the yoke of socialist bureaucracies — such as the NHS and most Town Halls — are notorious for centralised control, waste and almost total lack of accountability.

Whereas once the socialists wanted out of Europe altogether, they now embrace the EU and all its works as a device for imposing their will on an unwilling public. The EU itself is a socialist construct, top-down and anti-democratic.

After the nationalised industries went belly-up, the socialists set about nationalising every aspect of our daily lives, through quangos such as the Health And Safety and Equality Commissions and the ‘human rights’ racket.

The entire ‘diversity’ industry is a socialist front aimed not at eradicating discrimination, but persecuting individuals and criminalising Christianity, which has traditionally been socialism’s sworn enemy.

In the name of ‘equality’, Labour smashed the grammar schools, hobbling social mobility and harming the very people it claimed it was trying to help.

Gordon Brown’s creation of a vast, supplicant state was the imposition of socialism by any other name. He paid for it by letting the banks run riot rather than raising income tax. But the end result was bankruptcy, as it always is under Labour.

Ed Miliband hasn’t yet spelled out his vision of our socialist future, but the policies we know about give us a reasonable idea. 

Labour’s answer is a re-run of the tax-and-spend disaster movie which got us into this mess in the first place. 

The modern face of socialism manifests itself in the shape of the same old ‘bash the rich’ politics of resentment, a war on wealth creation and a shopping list of generous ‘giveaways’ funded by reckless borrowing and higher taxes.

Ed Miliband’s father could have reminded him of his beloved Karl Marx’s observation that history always repeats itself, ‘first as tragedy, second as farce’.

If Britain falls for Miliband’s socialist farce, it really will be a tragedy.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2430140/richard-littlejohn-if-britain-falls-eds-socialist-farce-really-tragedy.html#ixzz2gz6HMCU7 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Marxist Milliband is leading the charge back toward decay in Britain, with his rallying call of ‘yes I’m bringing back socialism’ to his misguided followers.

‘I’m bringing back socialism’: Miliband’s boast as he unveils plan to increase minimum wage and tax the rich more

By MATT CHORLEY, MAILONLINE POLITICAL EDITOR

PUBLISHED: 06:34 EST, 21 September 2013 | UPDATED: 06:13 EST, 22 September 2013

 

Ed Miliband today declared he was bringing socialism back to Britain as he unveiled a raft of left-wing policies.

The Labour leader promised to increase wages for the lowest paid, force schools to stay open for longer and monitor how many women appear on TV.

Taking part in an open-air Q&A session in Brighton,Mr Miliband was asked when he would ‘bring back socialism’.

The son of Marxist think Ralph Miliband replied: ‘That’s what we are doing, sir.

‘It is about fighting the battle for economic equality, for social equality and for gender equality too.

‘That is a battle that is not yet won in our country.’

He warned that people on the minimum wage are more than £860-a-year worse off because of the rising cost of living.

The Labour leader unveiled plans to dramatically increase the guaranteed rate of pay to reverse the impact of inflation in the last three years.

Mr Miliband hit out at global banks who make huge profits but claim they cannot afford to pay their cleaners ‘a bit more’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2427887/Ed-Miliband-Im-bringing-socialism-Labour-leader-plans-increase-minimum-wage-tax-rich-more.html#ixzz2gz78VdI1 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

It is no secret that I love my mother country, but I despair at how far she has fallen. Once the most powerful nation on the planet, Britain is now being strangled by bureaucrats, and decay is again setting in. I only hope that the UK has its own Tea Party of sorts in the near future to put itself back on track before it is too late.

Freedom dies within a generation

First off I would like to say a big thank you to all the liberty groups out there; from the libertarians to the Tea Party groups. Keep up the great work, you have no idea just how vital you are to the cause of freedom, and just how perilously close we are from a collectivist abyss.

Freedom really does die within a generation. Just a couple of decades ago Margaret Thatcher set Britain straight and pulled the country out from the death spiral of socialism. Her privatization policies revitalized England and put it back on track toward prosperity.

Today England is sliding back toward socialism. Guns are banned, healthcare costs soar while service plummets, and even the most intelligent people among the British population believe that guns should be banned in all countries and healthcare should be free for all.

It’s no secret why I moved to the United States. I did so to have a chance at freedom and to build a life for myself the way that I saw fit. Today Barack Obama and his string of thuggish democrats seek to destroy this great country with their warped view of fairness.

dies 1

I appeal to all Americans, do not give up this fight. England has been dying a quiet death over the last century. Progressives and their collectivist ideologies have ruined the once mighty Empire and all its gifts to the world.

Today there are three main party’s in Britain: The Liberal Democrats (extremely liberal), The Labour Party (extremely socialist) and the Conservatives (who their leader describes as ‘liberal conservatives’ and ‘compassionate conservatives’) Truly England has slipped and it will not be long before it experiences ruin, especially if the Labour Party wins the next general election under the leadership of ‘Red Ed’ Milliband.

Services Of Remembrance Are Held For The Fallen On Armistice Day

So keep up the good fight, and attack emotional stupidity with calm reasoning. We are right in our fight, and we will prevail. Do not allow this country to die a quiet death the way others have.

The Iron Lady

I personally owe a debt of gratitude to Margaret Thatcher, even though my parents despise her. Baroness Thatcher saved Great Britain, at a time when it was in deep decline. Even though her policies caused an initial recession (as did Ronald Reagan’s in the US) her slashing of taxes, deregulation and decentralization ultimately put Britain back on the map as a world power.

Margaret-Thatcher 1

Obituary: Margaret Thatcher

Before the first and second world war’s Britain was the world’s foremost superpower, much like the US is today, its power was unprecedented and unchallenged. After two of the most horrific wars in world history, its funds were greatly depleted and at home its social policies had begun to strangle this once prosperous nation.

margaret-thatcher-ronald--001

During the late 1940’s and all the way up until Margret Thatcher and the new conservatives took over in 1979 socialism had ruled the roost, and its effects had been devastating. The British government now controlled almost all the major industries, from British Gas to British Telecom. Margret Thatcher decentralized government, and privatized many major industries, she allowed the British public to then buy stock in these companies and reap the financial benefits for themselves. She allowed government housing to be bought up by its occupants at discount rates so that individuals could proudly buy and own property where before they could not afford it.

What is Thatcherism?

thatcher reagan

Though she became a symbol of hate, particularly for the decline of the British coal mine industry, I believe this hate is misplaced and unjustified. The powerful socialist coal unions did it to themselves with their stupid philosophy of striking at every single grievance. The initial recession and unemployment should have been expected after decades of socialist rule. Interest rates spiked, but inflation plummeted. Without Margret Thatcher and her Austrian economics Britain would have been bankrupt before I was even born. Her understanding of individual virtues versus the collective, and her brilliance in private property ownership versus state own monopolies saved my great home nation from the brink of communist abyss.

Viewpoint: What if Margaret Thatcher had never been?

maggie

I know that many of my family and friends back home despise this great woman, but it is a misplaced hatred. I have studied history and economics, and I can say that without a shadow of a doubt, that Margret Thatcher was one of the greatest leaders of the 20th Century.

iron lady

May she rest in peace.

An Orwellian America

The following post is a good example of where this country is heading. I do not bash both the left and the right for no reason. I want freedom for everyone, individual liberty is my ultimate goal. Please take time to read through the following material and study the graphs.

An Orwellian America

Zero Hedge – by Gordon T. Long

As a young man, I voraciously read George Orwell’s “1984”,  Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” and Alvin Toffler’s trilogy which included “Future Shock”‘, “The Third Wave” and “Power Shift”. During the era of the Vietnam War, I wondered seriously about the future and how it was destined to unfold. Now being considerably older, I have the vantage point to reflect back on my early ruminations and expectations. Unfortunately, I am too old to alter the lessons that are now so painfully obvious. Instead, I pass the gauntlet to those who can understand and take action on what I have unavoidably come to expect for America.

A FRAMEWORK OF UNDERSTANDING

THE ‘HUXLEY-ORWELL’ TRANSITION

I recently read a perceptive paper by Chris Hedges that would have made any English Professor envious, powerfully philosophical but not something an Economics department would pay much attention to. I found it both intriguing and enlightening.

I have borrowed so heavily from it, that I am unsure where the lines diverge. Therefore, below I give full credit to Chris Hedges and take full credit for all the bad ideas.

Chris Hedges of TruthDig.com wrote 2011: A Brave New Dystopia, from which the following evolved.

The two greatest visions of a future dystopia were George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.” The debate, between those who watched our descent towards corporate totalitarianism, was who was right. Would we be, as Orwell wrote, dominated by a repressive surveillance and security state that used crude and violent forms of control? Or would we be, as Huxley envisioned, entranced by entertainment and spectacle, captivated by technology and seduced by profligate consumption to embrace our own oppression? It turns out Orwell and Huxley were both right. Huxley saw the first stage of our enslavementOrwell saw the second.

We have been gradually disempowered by a corporate state that, as Huxley foresaw, seduced and manipulated us through:

•    Sensual gratification,
•    Cheap mass-produced goods,
•    Boundless credit,
•    Political theater and
•    Amusement.

While we were entertained,

•    The regulations that once kept predatory corporate power in check were dismantled,
•    The laws that once protected us were rewritten and
•    We were impoverished.

Now that:

•    Credit is drying up,
•    Good jobs for the working class are gone forever and
•    Mass-produced goods are unaffordable,

…. we find ourselves transported from “Brave New World” to “1984.”

The state, crippled by massive deficits, endless war and corporate malfeasance, is clearly sliding toward unavoidable bankruptcy.

It is time for Big Brother to take over from Huxley’s feelies, the orgy-porgy and the centrifugal bumble-puppy.

We are transitioning from a society where we are skillfully manipulated by lies and illusions to one where we are overtly controlled.

Huxley, we are discovering, was merely the prelude to Orwell.

Now that the corporate coup is over, we stand naked and defenseless. We are beginning to understand, as Karl Marx knew:

Unfettered and unregulated capitalism is a brutal and revolutionary force that exploits human beings and the natural world until exhaustion or collapse.

UNSOUND MONEY LEADS TO STATISM

With this as a backdrop let’s explore how Unsound Money in concert with the Huxley-Orwell Transition leads to Statism, the path which I believe we are presently on.

THE CATALYSTS BEHIND THE “TRANSITION”

1- UNSOUND MONEY

•    Removal from Gold Standard and adoption of Fiat Currency regime (in August 1971 during the winding down of the Vietnam War; the first War ever fought without tax increases to pay for it; the beginning of endless ‘conflicts’ and the War on “Terror”).
•    Creation and Fostering of a $67 Trillion Shadow Banking Credit Growth,
•    Massive Securitization & Off Balance Sheet Contingent Liability Debt Growth.

2- POLICY FAILURES

•    Failed Monetary Policy & Monetary Malpractice,
•    Moral Malady,
•    Failed Fiscal Policy,
•    Failed Public Policy,
•    Growth of Political Polarization,
•    Entrenched ‘Left-Right’ Factions,
•    An Un-Governable Democracy.

3- CRISIS OF TRUST

•    Lost Respect & Confidence
•    A Doomed Middle Class
•    A Broken Social Contract

4- AUTHORITARIAN ACCEPTANCE

•    Central Planning
•    Growth in Regulations & Control
•    Crony Capitalism & Corporatocracy
•    Big Government
•    The Huxley – Orwell Transition

CRUMBLING BARRIERS

•    The Great Huxley-Orwell Transition
•    From Manipulative to Repressive

ROADBLOCKS
•    Financial Security through Sound Money            REMOVED
•    Reduced Personal Freedoms through a Crisis         PENDING
•    Reduced Personal Security through a Constitutional Crisis    FUTURE

DRIVERS
•    Globalization & Complexity
o    Fragile versus Robust Systems
o    Interconnectivity and Counter Party Dependency

•    The Productivity Paradox
o    Creative Destruction & Job Creation

Let’s shift gears and consider what “greases the skids” in enabling this transition in our society to occur.

COLLECTIVISM

In The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek showed how governments, supported by a collectivist mindset, always tend towards totalitarianism. Even the most libertarian government thus far created, the government of the United States, has slipped incrementally towards totalitarianism over the past two centuries. This is because it is an inherent trait of a government.

The degree of socialism in the United States increased substantially after the establishment of the Federal Reserve System (1913) and the measures taken during the Great Depression (1929-46) which it created. Ever since the early 1900′s the United States has had a two-party system dominated by ‘socialists’. The Republican Party has always advocated conservative socialism. The Democratic Party, which in the 19th century favored libertarianism, advocates social-democratic socialism. So long as people are divided by Left and Right, Democratic and Republican, the US is prone to being influenced by factions who transcend party politics and from behind the scenes could possible exert strong control over the United States. They could do this by maintaining power over public opinion and hence over the course of government. Steadily, the United States has been travelling down the road to totalitarianism, and many people have not noticed, possibly because they are only looking at the position on the Left-Right paradigm.

Upon further analysis, it is clear that Left, Right and Centre, are all forms of socialism. In particular, we may call them “social-democratic socialism” (the Left) and “conservative socialism” (the Right). They are both socialism because they both share the principle that the government should “run” and “mold” society, by using legal force and intervention to transfer property and personal wealth as part of the political scientists’ process of ‘redistribution of wealth’.

The differences are only in the particular ways the government should run society – the methods it should use, and who, exactly, should be the recipients of government wealth transfers and who should pay. In particular:
•    Social democrats tend to prefer heavy taxation, large wealth transfers to the poor, and nationalized industries, and oppose price controls, regulations and behavioral controls.
•    Conservatives tend to prefer lower taxation, a smaller welfare state, regulated (cartelized) industries, price controls, product  and behavioral controls.

Nolan Charts: Personal Freedom versus Economic Freedom

The modern Republican Party is Center-Right on the Left-Right paradigm. As with the Democratic Party, this obscures the huge range of views Republicans hold on how powerful and how much control the State should be allowed. Their 2008 presidential nominee John McCain, like Barack Obama, strongly favored socialism, though with a Right-wing flavor. Barack Obama (blue circle) and John McCain (red circle) are positioned in the accompanying graphic. Thus, the two main candidates at the 2008 Presidential election represented a false choice – really no choice at all. One candidate, Ron Paul (yellow circle), stood in stark contrast to the candidates, favored by the mainstream media and political establishment. As would be expected, he was neutralized by the mainstream media outlets as a zealot with an unsound political view of America.

THE POLITICAL CONTINUUM

THE EMERGING ROADMAP TO STATISM

Let me now develop and explore the roadmap that outlines the path leading from Policy Failures and Monetary Malpractice, stemming from Unsound Money, to STATISM.
First we will build the outline for the basis of a roadmap on a number of observable continuums.

The more complex that issues become, the more collectivism will dominate and individual needs will be repressed. In turn governments will be forced to be more repressive to maintain control over increasing polarization and diverse views and opinions.

EVOLVING STAGES
When we arrange our various continuums we arrive at the representative grid model shown below.

We will quickly acknowledge it is not ideal, but it allows many concepts currently at play to be shown in relationship to others.

This grid is best described as the social forces at play within Globalization – Financial, Economic and Political.

DRIVER$ – VISIBLE & INVISIBLE
There are both visible and less visible forces at play that are forcing ‘greasing’ the skids in the movement towards Statism.

The roadmap integrates well into our roadmap from our THESIS 2011: Beggar-Thy-Neighbor / Currency Wars and2012 Thesis: Financial Repression papers. ()

ORWELL’S 1984 IS HAPPENING

We are one crisis away from a police state. All the powers are in place. Someone will flip the switch. Whether a Cyber Attack, escalating Currency War tensions or a ‘terrorist’ attack by indebted college youth, it is only a matter of time and circumstance.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-15/orwellian-america

Shaking up the establishment

As our King is about to be re-crowned and we must look at the failings within our own party to realize why he manged to get put on the throne to begin with.

Please watch this documentary and take in the essence of what it means to campaign for liberty in the face of tyrannical opposition:

Ron Paul campaigned in both 2008 and 2012, both times he was ignored by the establishment and the media. Both times he could have beaten Obama in a toe to toe election. Our party has strayed away from us, as the democratic party strayed away from liberals many decades ago. It’s time to reclaim the party, elect tea party and libertarian candidates, and take back the country!

shake up 3

Revolutions are long term projects and our revolution is just now beginning to ripen. Ron Paul’s son is now standing up for our constitutional rights in the senate, and he is being backed by millions of people all over the country. We are paving the way not for another RINO or a socialist democrat, but for a constitutional libertarian minded conservative to become president in 2016. We are entering perhaps our darkest hour in the liberty movement, but our light shines on, and our movement is growing. We will take this country back, and we’ll do it by shaking up the establishment, and putting real leaders in charge.

shake up 4

Our current tasks seem impossible, but we are well on the way to restoring liberty in this country.

“The American revolutionaries did the impossible. So can we.” – Ron Paul, The Revolution; A Manifesto