DIGG THIS

For a moment, a tiny little moment, I actually had some hope for our entire system of government when I heard that the Congress had listened to the big 3 automakers and had rejected their plea for more of my money. But that was short lived. Apparently, the big 3 looters have until December 2, 2008 to come up with some sort of report of what they need the money for and how they are going to use it. Despite the fact that they were already hauled in front of Congress to answer these very questions and failed mightily, they are now being given a second chance to answer the questions better. You can be sure that someone will write a better essay than these executives delivered and that Congress will hand them $25 billion; that is 25,000 million dollars of your money and mine. Here is the letter that two of the top democrats sent to the automakers. Nice of them to set out exactly what they want the essays to say: Hard to fail that test.

What I find so disturbing, is that in all the reports about this issue, no one ever asks IF this money should be stolen from the American people. They all assume that the answer is: of course. But will someone show me where in any documentation we have regarding our government, where it says that Congress can steal our money to hand to struggling companies?

And please, please, please, don’t even begin to lie to me about how the taxpayer will get money back under some plan or another. That is an all out fib. You and I will never receive a dividend check. We will never receive a check paying us back for all the money they stole from us. If, and that is a big if, the U.S. Government ever does get any money back on some sort of stock deal or something, it will be the U.S. Government that keeps the money, not you and I. We will never see anything, but a loss of our money.

It really doesn’t matter if those companies are important to our economy. If we give them money then we take it away from companies that are successful. There will be layoffs; you just won’t know they were directly connected to this theft. Good companies will be crushed by the weight and a person here and another there will lose their jobs. It will add up, but it will be spread out so that no one will see how this theft put all those people on the street. If these companies cannot make money, then they should go out of business. That is how things work. That is how they used to work. If the union contracts are too burdensome then perhaps someone should sit down with them and tell them that either these contracts go or you all lose your jobs?

Nice jobs they have too. According to Mark J. Perry, professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan, the big three pay out an average hourly compensation of $73.20 per hour. I went to undergrad and law school and worked in a large firm and I never made that much money. Do you make that much? No wonder these companies are drowning. They don’t need a hand out, they need a wake-up call and they won’t get it if they get saved. They will continue with business as usual until that money is used up and then come back and ask for more.

They need to learn that spending too much money is bad for running a profitable business. Of course it will hurt a lot of people, but so will supporting these giant failures and that pain is not so easily seen. That pain is spread out, but does it make it any less worth avoiding? No, you and I deserve our money.

However, this time we have a chance to do something about this. The deadline for this newest money-thieving atrocity is not until December 2, 2008. That means that you have time to email every person you know and beg them to call their Congressmen and tell them to vote against the bailout. You have time to make several calls a day yourself. You have time to send out emails and letters and faxes and make calls and organize others to do the same. Remember, however, that this is a short week with Thanksgiving coming up so do it quickly.

It is time that our representatives represent us. It is time our voices are heard. It is time that we start to count in this system of government. It is time to SHOUT "no more giving my money away! Shouldn’t the Congress be embarrassed enough as it is right now? After all, they voted for a $700 billion, TARP (Toxic Asset Relief Program) that turned out to be nothing but an early Christmas bonus for a few of the Secretary of the Treasury’s closest friends. As soon as was fashionable, Mr. Paulson announced that actually buying those toxic assets was not to his liking and abandoned the plan. Now the money goes straight to the bankers to do whatever they like with it. I wonder why they still keep using the initials TARP; perhaps GIFT would fit more accurately.

So, until this representative system of government is officially dead, make those calls, make those emails, send those faxes and tell all you know to do it too. Flood their lines. Let them know that in the America you know, we all pay for our mistakes and don’t go get some government thugs to steal the money to pay us back. We learned in kindergarten that stealing is wrong. How long will it take those in Congress to learn it? Since Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seem to be heading this little brainchild, don’t forget to include a nice note to each of them. Stop stealing my money! Or at least let me go down to their lots and pick out which car now belongs to me. If I am going to pay for a new car, then shouldn’t I get one? It seems we are getting a very raw deal.

Here is a speech by Ron Paul back in 1979 when he opposed bailing out Chrysler the first time. It is just as applicable today as it was back then. It seems that truth is truth. I urge anyone who is for these handouts to read that speech. I urge those that are against it to read it too. Ron Paul spells out the economic reasons why bailouts/handouts are so bad for the economy. As he writes: "A vote for the Chrysler bailout is, simply put, a vote for further inflation." Regarding this current bailout he so brilliantly states: "An essential element of a healthy free market, is that both success and failure must be permitted to happen when they are earned,” Mr. Paul said. “But instead with a bailout, rewards are reversed — the proceeds from successful entities are given to failing ones. How this is supposed to be good for our economy is beyond me.”

It is beyond me too.

Sandra Hamilton [send her mail] is a retired attorney.

Sandra Hamilton Archives

DIGG THIS

Recently I
wrote an article titled Toxic
Anger about the mortgage crisis and how it now seems that many
hard-working Americans will be forced by the government to pay for
people who live in foreclosed homes to keep their homes. Well, the
situation has not gotten any better.

More injustices
abound. It seems that we, the people who work hard, the responsible,
are being forced by the government to support the following irresponsible,
gambled and lost, groups:

We, the people,
have already bailed out nine Wall Street banks who are thinking
about using $108 billion dollars of the recent $125 billion taken
from us by the government to
give to employees as bonuses. In fairness, many of these employees'
compensation packages are bonus driven and people are saying these
folks should not work for free, but if your company went bankrupt
and had to get stolen money to keep going, do you still deserve
that money? After all, it is not coming from the company anymore.

We, the people,
are supposed to bail out additional homeowners in expensive neighborhoods
who can pay their mortgages just fine, but are learning the value
in being a looter and are now ceasing to make their payments. They
have learned that is better to be a looter so they too can be in
foreclosure and get a better mortgage on their home. (Sorry I don't
have a link for this, but I heard it on 11/6/08 on CNBC.)

We, the people,
are now supposed to bail out the auto industry and the United Auto
Workers Union because although these companies are not profitable,
we need them to stay in business and keep losing money. President
elect Obama has promised $50 billion of our dollars to keep
them in business. (Although how long they will stay is business
is questionable since both GM and Ford posted losses of more than
$27
billion in the first half of 2008 alone).

In addition,
hedge funds, the insurance industry and others are all looking to
get some of our money. Daily, more people fall into the looting
category and fewer feel the desire to remain producers. Ayn Rand
predicted this over fifty years ago in her brilliant book Atlas
Shrugged. A must read for all these days.

We are told
we need to give these folks money because they are u201Ctoo important
to fail.u201D Here is a nice
little article about past industries that did not get bailed
out and as a result they brought the calamity of lost jobs. These
companies included the typewriter industry, hoop skirt manufactures,
and the enormous horse and buggy carriage industry that took with
it stagecoach drivers, wheelwrights, and blacksmiths, as well as
those darned buggy whip manufacturers.

Okay, so by
now you are angry: Really, really angry. If you are like many Americans,
this year you saw your home
lose as much as 50% and many portfolios are down 60%. Even if
you live in a tiny apartment in New York City and don't have a dime
to your name, you have seen food and fuel prices go up like never
before. We are all paying for this in some form. You now understand
that all of these bailouts are coming from you and you don't like
it. What can you do?

What follows
is advice I have heard from Ron Paul in various speeches, articles,
and his recent book The
Revolution: A Manifesto as well as other sources such as
Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute who teach Austrian Economics.
What can you do to fight this overreaching of government power?

1. Educate,
educate, educate. First educate yourself. Learn about the Austrian
School of Economics and why printing trillions of dollars is hurting
every single American, even those that don't pay taxes. It is called
the Inflation tax and comes when the Federal Reserve prints more
and more dollars and weakens the value of each. This makes prices
go up and we pay additional taxes in every penny we spend. If printing
money could solve all our problems, then why not just print up ten
million dollars for every household in America? Wouldn't that jumpstart
the economy? Actually, all that would do is cause the dollar to
crash and send us into hyper-inflation. If that is bad, then aren't
these bailouts going to be bad one day too? We got into this mess
by printing too much money. How is more poison going to help the
poisoned?

2. Hand out
as many Red Pills as you can. In other words, open people's eyes
about government theft. For me, the u201Cahau201D moment came when I learned
(and I admit I did not know) that the government does not have any
money. It does not make anything. It does not produce any money.
All the money it gets it takes from you and me. Therefore, anytime
they talk about how u201Cweu201D need to give $700 billion dollars to anyone
that is money that is taken from you and me in the form of higher
direct taxes, higher taxes through inflation, or additional debt
that must be paid back at some point by us.

3. Use better
language. The government does not want you to put the focus on them
and have taught us some bad habits. Instead of saying u201Cweu201D when
talking about the actions taken by the U.S. Government, say, u201Cthe
U.S. Government.u201D Such as: instead of u201Cweu201D are fighting a war with
u201CIraqu201D change it to the U.S. Government is fighting a war with the
government of Iraq. Only in America do we say u201Cweu201D when speaking
of the government.

4. In the same
vein, be clearer about current economics. Instead of saying that
Obama will save the big three automakers as if he is a generous
leprechaun with an unlimited pot of gold, make it clear where the
money is coming from and who is taking it. Such as, I heard today
that President elect Obama is considering stealing $50 billion dollars
from the American public to give to certain auto companies. (I say
stealing, because no one asked me my opinion on the matter and if
they had I would have said no. If I do not have the right to say
no, I call that stealing.) Try this little test with this article
here
and see how it sounds when you replace all the language. For example
it talks about stimulus checks being given to Americans. Well, these
did not come out of this air. Replace that phrase with u201Cstimulus
checks paid for with money stolen from the American people.u201D They
don't sound so stimulating any more.

5. Stop watching
mainstream news. Most of it is propaganda or silly stories you can
do without. I tried this and two months later watched a national
newscast. I was shocked at all the direct lies and manipulations
that were substituted as u201Cnews.u201D For example, before the $700 billion
dollar bailout we were told the sky would fall and credit would
stop if we did not hand over our money to these banks. Instead,
they hoarded it, used it to purchase struggling banks in the biggest
fire sale of the century and they barely increased the amount of
credit extended to regular folk. (Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting
that they should have to give credit to the un-creditworthy — that
landed us in this mess in the first place.) But the world did not
end. Nothing much has changed except that these banks that were
struggling a little are now doing quite well. (Well, goodie for
them. I still can barely afford to buy groceries).

6. To replace
the loss of the mainstream news, get your information from sources
such as Mises.org, LewRockwell.com,
FFF.org, and FEE.org.
These are non-statist websites that are run by people who have already
swallowed the Red Pill. They know that the government is nothing
but force, it is run by thugs and thieves, it is not our friend,
and its sole purpose is to steal as much money from each of us as
it can get away with. These sites tell it like it is without a statist
slant. (A statist thinks the State — the government — is better
at spending your money than you are and we cannot be trusted to
make our own decisions. A non-statist thinks just the opposite:
that we are adults, we know better than some bureaucrat how best
to spend our limited resources and that our private lives are our
business.)

7. Understand
that the government is not trying to make sure everyone gets a home,
but instead, they are doing their best to make sure everyone gets
a thirty-year mortgage. That sounds a lot less benevolent and a
little more like crony capitalism does it not? The government is
not the nanny state, it is the warden state. It is not there to
gently teach you and guide you; it rules you with a heavy hand and
stick. Which reminds me — stop calling these politicians our u201Cleaders.u201D
They are not leading us anywhere. They are our rulers. They tell
us what to do and in most cases we have very little we can do about
it. Thoughts become much clearer when you use the proper language.

8. Anytime
you hear someone say that the free market caused this mess set them
straight. Do not let that lie spread any further. The financial
crisis was caused by government intervention in the markets. Fannie
and Freddie were both government-created programs designed to put
a mortgage in every pot. The Federal Reserve continually lowered
interest rates (as they are doing right now) until money was so
cheap it didn't make sense not to borrow more than you could
afford. In 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act was designed to
provide u201Caffordableu201D mortgages to those with poor
credit. In 1995, President Clinton made
changes to the CRA that loosened credit standards even further
and forced banks to make risky loans or face penalties. These actions
are as far from a free market as you can get. This is corporatism
and social engineering at its worst.

9. Finally,
do all you can to tell as many people what you have learned. Tell
everyone you know. Understand that it is not the foreclosed homeowners
who are stealing from you, it is the government. (Although I have
a thing or two to say to the people
who stood outside the FDIC and protested about their mortgages being
too high and demanded that the FDIC take money from you and me so
they could have lower monthly payments. Apparently, they now think
the deal the originally signed could have been better. AIG also
thinks its bailout deal could have been better and now the old president
of the company is asking for better
terms. Gee, could it be because he is a major shareholder?)
These folks could not get a dime from us legally if the government
wasn't involved. The automakers do not have a right to one penny
from you unless the government decides to steal it from you. Wall
Street banks would fail or not based on their own business decisions
without the government stealing from us to prop them up. No matter
how much these looters beg, it is government action that actually
takes money from you.

So, keep it
simple. Keep it clear. The problem is government power and the need
to get rid of it. It will not matter who is in charge if the government
doesn't have much power. Moreover, we have a lack of understanding
by most Americans that the government has no pot of gold to hand
out. Teach that all wealth transfer is theft. Not too many people
are comfortable being thieves. If you teach them that each government
program they are seeking is grand theft, they may think differently.
Explain that people have a right to their labor and they should
not be made slaves to support leviathan. Tell them that if we eliminated
all the government programs we could get rid of the Income Tax and
spend our money the way we want to.

Learn
about how liberal programs such as minimum wage laws and the Americans
with Disabilities Act have actually hurt the people they are designed
to help. Learn
how u201Cfreeu201D government education is not free at all (many homeowners
pay for it through property taxes) and they are teaching our children
how to be good little citizens that do not question government action.
Not much could be more dangerous to liberty.

Send articles
to your friends. But most important of all, keep learning. It is
easier to get clear information these days, but you have to look
for it. Remember though, only the educated can teach and this country
needs to learn a whole lot of lessons. Perhaps you might want to
consider picking up copies of Murray Rothbard's What
has Government Done to Our Money and Ron Paul's The
Revolution: A Manifesto. My husband and I are giving a copy
of each to everyone on our Christmas list. (Both of these can be
found from the links on the front page of LewRockwell.com.)

Finally, for
a brilliant inspiring speech by Ron Paul about what each of us can
do to turn this country around, listen
to this.

Peace.

November
10, 2008

Sandra
Hamilton [send her mail]
is a retired attorney.

DIGG THIS

Most of us
know by now that a lot of toxic debt has been filling up the balance
sheets of our financial institutions creating one heck of a financial
meltdown. What we do not know is what the solutions to those problems
are going to create in terms of human emotion.

Everywhere
you turn these days you hear cries of "we have to save the
homeowners; we must lower their payments and keep them in their
homes." Why? Why do we have to save these people? Why should
someone get to have a home that they can only keep if others help
pay for it? Why do we have to save the institutions that lent to
them? "They" say they need one trillion dollars or more
of my money to bail out a lot of people. Why on earth do I have
to give my hard-earned money to irresponsible people? The thought
is making me very angry.

Several years
ago I bought a house. I had an option for the financing; I could
take a rather high interest rate (for the time) that was fixed or
I could put nothing down and pay nearly nothing for an adjustable
rate mortgage. I decided not to gamble. I knew interest rates can
and do rise. I opted to pay a lot more for my house and to have
the security of a fixed rate loan. That decision cost me a lot of
money over the past five years, but it was supposed to save me money
when the tide turned.

Now, I am paying
for that decision. I am paying for my neighbor's house down the
road who did not want to pay more at the time. I am paying so that
my neighbor and yours, who took out a mortgage with no down payment
and paid next to nothing for the past five years, can get his mortgage
reduced with my money. How is that fair?

My next-door
neighbor decided to take out a huge chunk of change by refinancing
when housing prices were high. He spent nearly a hundred thousand
dollars fixing up his home and buying new cars and boats. He has
a lovely new kitchen and a bathroom to die for. Now he will be bailed
out by the government because his house is in foreclosure. He will
get a new loan, a nice low fixed rate (even lower than mine) and
he will have a significant chunk of his principle reduced. Who pays
for that? Me. Why? Because the government doesn't have a dime and
all money it gives to Mr. Smith it must take from Mr. Jones. (You
and I are Mr. Jones in this example.)

Now I am living
in a house that is not fixed up. I have the same kitchen I had when
I moved in. My shower leaks in my outdated bathroom. I have a twelve-year-old
car. I do not have a boat, but I will have to pay for all those
toys my neighbor now has. I find myself looking at all my neighbors
and wondering which of them are taking my money and I am angry.

I am not the
first to figure out that I am paying for other's extravagances.

The government
just decided to hand one trillion dollars of Mr. Jones' (the people's)
money to a ton of Mr. Smiths. The final bill may end up looking
more like five trillion dollars. Who benefits? Not me. All my stocks
have taken a huge hit and my IRA looks more like a piggy bank. What
did I get out of this? Certainly not a $440,000 vacation.

Again, I am
not the first to figure this out.

All around
me I see people who are growing increasingly angry. I see people
seething when someone says that irresponsible homeowners should
be bailed out. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad that people are losing
their homes, but should I have to pay their mortgage? I see people
wanting to start a witch hunt for those government officials that
created the incentives for this to happen. People want to hang those
on Wall Street that created these toxic mortgage swaps effectively
gambling without a dime in their pocket. An unprecedented number
of people called Congress at a 100 to 1 ratio and begged their "representatives"
not to bail out these crooks. Instead, they were terrorized by the
chief ruler of this country who told them the sky would fall if
they didn't let this theft happen to try to force them to change
their minds. The people spoke and Washington answered: la la la
la la la la, I can't hear you with my fingers in my ears.

Both men running
to be the next ruler of this country promised that they would not
allow business as usual to take place in D.C. Both promised to make
changes. Both said they would not allow bills that contained expensive
pork. Well, the campaign is not even over and they have both lied
already. McCain and Obama happily signed the second bailout bill
that contained an additional $150,000,000,000 worth of pork barrel
spending. They can't even get through a few weeks of campaigning
without breaking their promises. The people are looking at their
"choices" and they are angry because they know there will
be no change. Many are angry because the one hope we had — Ron Paul
— was stolen from us by a foolish media who now seek out interviews
with him like he is a financial rock star. (Please forgive my slight
against third-party candidates by insinuating that only two men
are running for President.)

If the people
in charge of our money would just listen to Ron Paul for once, we
would all stand a chance. He knows the cure for our economic ills.
He knew this was coming; he has been warning Congress for years.
Better yet, he knows how to fix this mess. Moreover, Dr. Paul knows
that stealing from the poor to give to the rich is bad for our morality.
We need to leave the markets alone to let them work. We need to
let bad companies fail. We will have a bad recession that will probably
last a year rather than what could be decades of financial disaster.
We could have hope, but that seems unlikely. The odds are slim that
the Secretary of the Treasury or any other politician in Washington
will listen to Dr. Paul no matter how much the markets drop. They
will keep inflating to prop up a failing system and we face the
awful possibility of hyperinflation.
People are angry that we have a solution but it is being ignored.

The people
of this country are beginning to realize that the irresponsible
get rewarded while the hard working stiffs get the shaft. They are
seeing that no matter how loudly they scream, they have no voice
in our government. They taught their children to be responsible
and to live within their means, but the folks with six-figure credit
card debt and homes they cannot afford are getting all the goodies.
The companies with the worst managers, who took the greatest risks,
are getting handed multi-billion dollar checks, while the rest of
us cannot afford groceries. The hardest-working folks, the ones
who saved for their future are now realizing that our government
can and will take it all away from them in a second. And guess what,
they are angry: Very, very angry.

Guess what
else people are figuring out? If they are upside down on their home
loan — in other words — they owe more than their house is now worth
— it makes economic sense not to pay your mortgage. As soon as you
go into foreclosure you will likely get your principle reduced and
your interest rate lowered. Once the word gets out, many will decide
not to pay their mortgage. Now that is a great incentive to get
the housing market back on its feet! Instead of letting housing
prices fall for a short time and then rebound, the government has
inadvertently set up a situation where houses will continue to go
into foreclosure, banks will have to get more money from us to stay
in business and we are all in a dangerous downward spiral.

Knowing what
I do about Austrian Economics, I know that printing money cannot
make a country wealthy. I am not sure what this toxic anger will
do to the country. We will all end up paying a lot to bail out a
lot of irresponsible people and we will not be happy about it.

I am reminded
of a scene from Atlas
Shrugged by Ayn Rand. (I highly recommend the book to anyone
who has not read it yet.) In that book, she talks about a company
that decided the best way to exist was to take from each according
to his ability to give to each according to their need. Eventually,
everyone ending up needing a whole lot and no one was too keen to
be productive.

I worry that
we will see something similar in this country. What are we learning
from all of this? What lessons are we teaching our children? Are
we telling them that those that fail the hardest get to steal the
most from those that do the best? You don't have to be too bright
to decide which side of that equation you want to be on. Charity
used to be something you gave freely and felt good about doing.
Charity at the point of a gun is not done freely and no one feels
good about it. Those that are taken from are furious and
those that receive are not grateful; instead, they feel entitled
and ask for more. Nothing could be worse for us morally as a people.
Forget about the toxic debt, what will we do with all this toxic
anger?

October
22, 2008

Sandra
Hamilton [send her mail]
is a retired attorney.

DIGG THIS

It seems these
days the question for every stock market pundit is “what will make
the common man feel safe again about investing in the stock market?” 
Sadly, every government intervening solution they propose completely
misses the mark.  The simple answer is: nothing.  Do nothing
and people might start investing again.  I can’t speak for
all people, but I am certainly a common person.  I do
not have a ton of money to invest.  I have a small IRA that
now will not get me through 4 months of retirement let alone get
me through my golden years.  Yet, through my IRA I was invested
in the stock market, although now it is mostly in cash. (I must
make a small disclosure here.  My name is not Joe and I am
not a plumber.)

I admit I am
not a sophisticated investor.  I am just an average
person.  But this average person sees that the government is
playing favorites and unless you know who are on their “special”
list then you have no way of knowing how to invest.  If you
see a housing market slowing, you can make a decision based on that
information, but what do you do when the government decides one
day that the housing market cannot slow:  You lose your shirt
because all your investments just fell through the floor.

If any of these
pundits would bother to ask me what it would take for me to reinvest
my money in the stock market I would be happy to tell them. 
There is no amount of government intervention that can get me to
“trust” the market again.  The reason I do not trust the
market is because of the government intervention. 
How can I enter into a contract with any company when the government
can come along and undo that contract or do something that makes
that move foolish?  I cannot play in a game where the rules
change hourly.  If I short the financial market and the
government can come along and hand one trillion dollars to that
sector I lose my pants.  If I buy one pharmaceutical company
thinking that they will do well because they are a stable company
making a good product, I will be in trouble when the competitor
of that company gets a huge check handed to them by the government
because they are too large to fail.  If I buy one soft drink,
what happens when the Secretary of the Treasury decides he likes
another brand better and hands them some of my hard-earned cash?

This market
is crazy and volatile right now because the government
is trying to create stability.  The worst part is, I do not
think that there is anything that can be done at this point to make
me want to test the waters again.  Even if the government magically
took back all the money they handed to a few companies, I couldn't
trust that they would not jump in again.

Playing the
stock market is all about predicting the future based on what you
think people are apt to do in a given situation.  However,
when someone can come in and hand out checks willy-nilly, then all
that predicting is worthless.  You can’t know what situation
you are actually in anymore.  You may think that extravagant
purchases would go down in a recession, but what if the government
decides that everyone must own a Ferrari?  You can bet your
stock in Kia will drop dramatically as soon as the word gets out. 
What if I invest in gold and the government decides, again, that
people should not own gold and then confiscates all the gold I have?

Until the government
gets out of the way and lets the free market be free, then investing
in the stock market becomes simply a quest of trying to decide what
the government will do next.  Unfortunately, the government
is a lot more irrational than the general populace and its politicians
have agendas we can never know about.  I can make a prediction
about human action; I have no idea what the government will do next.

Sadly, I do
not believe the government will ever get out of the stock market.
Historically, politicians are loathe to give up power they managed
to steal.  Indeed, it is my hunch that from here on out, whenever
a sector starts to dip below “acceptable” levels, they too will
have their hand out and the government foxes will be only too happy
to guard the sector’s hen house.  Since I have no idea what
is considered “acceptable” I cannot predict a thing from here on
out — except that I will not be able to predict a thing from here
on out.

When businesses
have the ability to force the government to steal money from the
people to give to them if they fail, you get businesses that are
incredibly risky.  After all, what benefit do you have of being
a carefully well-run company?  If you gamble and lose very,
very big you get your money back, if you win, you win very, very
big.  If you do not gamble and are careful, you will fall far
behind.  Who wants to gamble on companies that have the incentive
to be reckless?  Should I now look for the worst-run companies
with terrible, corrupt directors?  Even that will not work
unless you know which of those companies has the most political
connections: Apparently Lehman Brothers was not well connected.

You want to
know what it will take to get me back into the stock market? Nothing.
Absolutely nothing.

October
21, 2008

Sandra
Hamilton [send her mail]
is a retired attorney.

DIGG THIS

I recently
wrote an article titled Voting
Fourth Party. In it I made a suggestion for people that were
not content to pick just any ole third-party candidate. I stated
that if they did not like any of the candidates or what they stood
for, they could instead write in the name of the person they DID
want to be President. (For many of us that would be Dr. Ron Paul.)
Alternatively, none of the above is also a good choice.

Sadly, in
many states, these write-in votes can not be counted for the candidate
of your choice unless that person registers in advance as a write-in
candidate. Alternatively, in some states you cannot write in anyone,
others prevent you from writing in a candidate who lost in a primary
even if they did register, and in a few lucky places all write-ins
are counted. Here
is a link that will tell you how your state does it. Please
verify with your Secretary of State as the information may have
changed.

I received
a ton of mail on the topic (thank you to all that wrote to me, I
learned something from each and every one of you). I am writing
this follow-up because I would like to explain my position more
fully based on some of the comments I received.

Many people
wrote in to say that because their state will not count write-in
votes at all, my position was foolish. I will address that concern.

I am suggesting
voting as a write-in PRECISELY because it will not be counted. This
holds true especially in the states that throw those votes in the
trash. By taking this action, we expose the sham that is a supposedly
democratic society. We force the state to take a notably undemocratic
action: throwing a vote in the trash.

The other alternative
is to vote for any third-party candidate willy-nilly. I will not
vote for someone I dislike because then all I am doing is sending
the message that I approve of that person and their politics. By
voting third party, I am not sending the message that I disliked
the other candidates. Choosing a third-party candidate is a wise
course of action if you do like that person, but if you do not,
you will only get more of the above. After all, you voiced your
approval.

Another course
of action suggested was to not vote at all because to do so is to
participate in an illegitimate system. I am not unsympathetic to
that argument. However, instead of not voting I choose instead to
make a statement — I voted but the State actually stole my vote
and threw it in the garbage. Rightly or wrongly, a non-vote is usually
seen as apathy and that is not the message I want to send. I do
not disagree with that approach, but I am more of an activist. I
want to force the state to take an action against me. I want them
to show their hand.

Rather than
staying home, by voting as a write-in I am saying, I did not like
any of your candidates. Imagine if we all did it? Then where would
they be? How would they legitimize the theft? How would they claim
that the people had a choice?

Imagine if
the 49% or more who do not vote all instead wrote in a name. Imagine
seeing that McCain got 25% of the vote, Obama received 25% and 49%
voted for "other." Wouldn't that be a stronger message?

The government
grabs our children as early as possible and teaches them their version
of history; they teach them their version of democracy. They pretend
you have a choice so that you will not complain. After all, you
voted for a candidate, right? You had your democratic moment. Well,
I do not recognize "your money or your life" as a choice.
I choose instead to vote the way I want and to make the state take
the action of tearing up my vote. Then I can proudly say, I did
vote, but the state stopped me because it was too frightened of
my ability to choose, so this mess is your fault.

If you agree
to play in a rigged game, how can you complain when you are swindled?
You chose to participate. Well, this game is as rigged as it gets.
I will not play. However, rather than staying home, I choose to
make the state show one of its cards. Again, imagine if we all did
it? The game would collapse. It needs willing participants to give
it the air of legitimacy it needs. Without that, well, the people
might see that they really do not have any choice in this supposedly
representative Republic and the most basic right, the right to vote,
is finally seen as an illusion.

Many states
such as Texas, where your write-in vote will be "ignored,"
(as told to me by the Secretary of State's office) are really saying:
You do not have a choice here; dissenters are unwelcome. We refuse
to recognize that anyone is unhappy. This is akin to the way those
that march against Bush's policies are shuffled into a "free
speech zone" blocks away so the President never has to see
that anyone is unhappy with his policies. We must fight these assaults
on our freedom of expression.

Someone has
to start saying the Emperor has no clothes. Insanity is repeating
the same mistakes expecting different results.

I will end
with an email sent to the Secretary of State's office in Texas.
Feel free to copy it if your state also ignores all write-ins unless
the person has registered. First, email to make sure you understand
their position. If they clarify that the write-in votes will not
be counted, will be ignored, or otherwise thrown in the trash unless
that person has properly registered, then send them this and cc
a bunch of newspaper reporters in your state:

To whom it
may concern:

Just so I
have this clear. If a person chooses to write in a candidate that
did not declare, or register, those votes will be ignored, and
that person’s right to make any statement in this Presidential
election will be taken away from them? Even people who vote for
Mickey Mouse are making a statement. But you are going to silence
all of those voices? Have I got it correct?

Only those
that recognize the fallacy of the “choices” presented to us will
be allowed to vote? The rest of us, who are not happy with our
choices are better off staying at home? Is that really what you
are telling me? You are removing the right to vote for “other”?

While, it
is clear that the Bush Administration has removed many of our
Constitutional rights, I did not know the right to vote was among
them.

This makes
me very sad. What happened to America? Where did it go?

Please tell
me — for a person who abhors the choices presented to her — how
I am supposed to say so? If I must pick a person on the ballot
then any vote I make will only be counted as an affirmative vote
for the "lesser of several evils" choice I make. That
means I still have to vote for evil. I do not want to vote for
evil.

Under this
system, you are telling the disgruntled to go away. Please hide
in the closet. We will only recognize the people who are happy
with the process. Any dissent must be silenced. Either you will
like the choices given to you or you will remain quiet. We cannot
hear from anyone who is not content. Would you call that the American
way of doing things?

I beg you
to reconsider ignoring these votes completely. These people have
something to say. They are saying — we are unhappy. Please hear
us. Those who are registered in a party can say "I don’t
like the person the party picked" and the party can hear
them: But not if their vote is ignored.

What good
is free speech if we are only allowed to say what we want in our
own closet? These “other” votes are a statement. Please don’t
silence democracy.

Please report
these votes in total. Let the people hear how many are unhappy.
Let the parties hear how many they have failed to reach. Let their
voices be heard. Or are you telling them all to stay home? Do
you really want to make apathy the intelligent choice? Right now
it is pretty stupid to go to the polls if you do not like the
choices: So much for getting out the vote. I guess only "certain"
people are allowed to speak.

Perhaps if
the American public really understood how fixed the game is, they
might start to complain. A girl can dream can't she?

Peace.

September
17, 2008

Sandra
Hamilton [send her mail]
is a retired attorney.

DIGG THIS

Most of the
people that I know are not happy with the political choices they
have for President this year. I hear lots of talk about voting against
one guy or the other, but not so much talk about voting FOR anyone.
There is one man, however, that a great many people wish they could
vote for and that is Ron Paul. His supporters have their news page
set to pick up all stories about him, they go to rallies thousands
of miles away to support a man who is not even in the running anymore,
and his support is not waning, in fact, it is growing.

Recently, Ron
Paul held a news
conference and suggested that people vote for a third-party
candidate. Notably absent from his side, was the third-party candidate
Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate. Despite the snub, Ron
Paul still stood up for Barr and others in an effort to stop the
insanity. If you want change, then you have to change the way you
vote. Repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results
is the definition of insanity.

I spent the
day reading articles about Ron Paul's historic speech. I found it
strange that the pundits, who once ignored Ron Paul completely,
suddenly were terribly interested in his opinions. It seems that
as soon as Ron Paul says something that might affect the anointed
ones, they must report. Would Ron Paul's words make his supporters
more or less likely to vote for McCain? Obama? Who will this affect
more?

Meanwhile,
the comments from Ron Paul supporters were all about which third-party member to vote for, who should they support now? Reading between
the lines it appears that his supporters are still loyal, only now
they are not sure how to remain loyal.

If we are to
accept that voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for
evil (and I do accept that premise), then why throw your vote around
willy-nilly? Voting for a third-party candidate simply because they
are a third-party candidate makes no sense. You still have to use
your mind in this election. You still have to choose a candidate
to vote FOR.

At this point
in this article I had intended to tell people that wish to vote
for Ron Paul to do so by writing his name in on the ballot. I have
bad news. Research revealed that in most states, a candidate must
jump through a bunch of legal hoops to have their names counted
as a write-in. The supposed argument is that you are never actually
voting for a candidate, just a slate of electors who will go to
the Electoral College to vote for your candidate and if those electors
are not registered ahead of time, then in fact, you are not voting
for anyone.

However, some
states have managed to do away with all that nonsense. This is a
nice page
that breaks down the rules state by state, but as rules are constantly
changing, I ask that you please check the rules for your state and
not rely on the information in that link. My question is, if some
states can allow you to vote for whomever you wish why can't they
all? What is so difficult about allowing the American people to
pick the person they want to be President? Why is this so dangerous?

Every year
we get these huge get-out-the-vote drives that are designed to legitimize
a system and to make you think you have a choice. If you knew you
did not have a choice you might balk a little. So they pretend to
give you a choice between a statist and another statist and do everything
in their power to prevent you from hearing the non-statist point
of view and if you dare to learn of it on your own, they will stop
you from being able to vote for your particular candidate. They
are good at it.

This year I
find myself with a huge dilemma. I typically vote Libertarian, but
this year I cannot. I do not like the candidate. I choose not to
support that candidate. I also do not like the other third-party
candidates. If I vote against a guy, then I am telling the guy I
voted for that I like him. That would be false and I do not want
to send that message. If I similarly vote Libertarian no matter
who the candidate is, then I am telling the Libertarian Party that
I do not care who they choose, but I do care. I do not want this
year's candidate to be President. I initially thought I would just
write-in Ron Paul and feel good about myself. It turns out, much
to my chagrin, that my state has one of those laws that will not
count write in candidates unless the candidate filed certain papers
and has not already lost a primary. (They call it the sore loser
law. But if the people later discover they like the loser better
than the winner, where is the harm in letting them choose?) So if
I vote for Ron Paul, it will be counted as a "write-in"
but not as a vote for Paul.

I have gone
over this multiple times. Do I support the Libertarian Party even
though I do not support the candidate? That goes against my principles.
Do I choose any other third party to send a message? Again, that
goes against my principles. I choose not to vote against people
but to vote for them. Therefore, I am left with the decision to
write in the name Ron Paul. I think he would make a great President.
I know my vote will not count as a vote for Dr. Paul, but it will
be counted in the generic category of "write-ins." When
they show the total of people in my state who do not like the choices
they were given I will be among them. And that is the message I
truly want to send with my vote. I do not accept your chosen few.
I am an American and as so I believe I have the right to vote for
whom I choose.

Perhaps if
enough people also wrote-in their vote, these draconian write-in
laws will be removed. In Delaware, for example, (correct me if I
am wrong) if you write in a candidate, that vote will count, period.
I think we all have that right.

I thought about
not voting at all because I do not want to legitimize the system,
but those non-votes are simply seen as apathy. I am not apathetic.
I am passionate: Extremely passionate for liberty.

So this election,
I will be making a statement. I will vote for the man I believe
to be the best candidate, I will do my best to expose a corrupt
system that prevents most of us from making a real choice, and I
will sleep well. If you feel the same way, I ask you to join me.
Even writing in "none of the above" sends a message. I
ask you to think about the message you wish to send with your vote.
If you want change then change.

Peace.

September
13, 2008

Sandra
Hamilton [send her mail]
is a retired attorney.

DIGG THIS

When I was
a child I had a great deal of hope in my life. My living conditions
were not that great; I won't go into details but let's just say
I was much happier when I was alone. But no matter what I had a
great deal of hope. Life was filled with wonder and excitement and
I knew, just knew that when I grew up things would all be better.
I kept hearing that life isn't fair when I believed deep in my heart
that it should be. I was pretty sure that as soon as got out into
the world on my own, I would find that life that was fair.

Then I grew
up and things were not all I expected. I became jaded and disillusioned.
The basic truths of human existence — don't steal, be nice to each
other, etc. I found broken on a regular basis by the government
— an entity I was taught I was supposed to admire. I read about
wars that had no meaning, I saw people being attacked by the men
in uniforms that were supposed to be our protectors. I witnessed
laws made that had no reason for being, laws against things that
hurt no one and seemed to only be there because someone didn't like
something. It made no sense.

Where was this
world I was expecting? Where was the dream land of equality and
fairness and common decency? I was so sure that world existed and
I was crushed when I found out that it didn't.

Life went on.
I adjusted. A subtle discord crept into my being. I internalized
the meaning of malaise and sadly accepted that there was nothing
I could do about it. Oh, I do not mean to say that I walked around
weeping all of the time, but there was a "grayness" I
felt that I don't really know how to put into words. The worst part
of it all was the feeling of complete helplessness. I felt that
the dream I had hoped for had no chance of existing and I had no
way to affect that fact.

Then I started
reading things written by Ron Paul. He gave me hope that I am not
alone in my dreams. Here was a man that seemed to share those dreams.
I began to feel that the world does have one ray of sunshine in
it. He made me think that my desires are attainable and that believing
in liberty and freedom is not a hopeless cause.  He gave me
justification for every argument I had ever had on the subject.
I can once again state with supreme confidence that life should
be fair or at least that we should strive for fairness and not just
abandon the attempt before we get started.

Ron Paul says
things that are deeply planted in my heart. I do not know where
they came from, but he brings an explanation for these things. Ron
Paul explains why believing in liberty is not just for dreamers,
but it is a gift for all mankind. Dr. Paul shows that freedom needs
protecting, but it is worth protecting and yes, he will protect
it! To me, Ron Paul is a sort of defender of the soul. Maybe he
needs an action figure made in his image? The great Ron Paul with
his cape flying, running to rescue the Constitution as it takes
blow after blow! Tune in next week when we see Ron Paul save a civil
liberty from crashing to the ground below!

I think that
is why I have become so enamored of his campaign. Oh, he may not
win, but maybe he is planting a seed somewhere.  Or, he could
win and that would really be amazing.  Either way, he has brought
sunshine to that grayness I used to feel. I once again feel hope.
I feel that a world of which I had only dreamed is possible.
I think I know how the founding fathers must have felt. I finally
understand a cause worth dying for. I have everlasting gratitude
for the men who fought the revolutionary war. Once again we are
fighting the same revolution.

Here are the
kinds of things that Ron Paul wants to do that I am so grateful
to hear: he wants to abolish the IRS. Well, I think that if you
work for your money you ought to keep it. Nothing seems less fair
than having to give so much of my money away to pay for things that
I abhor.

Ron Paul wants
to end the war in Iraq. I believe deep in my soul that people should
not kill each other except in defense. It is a part of me. It always
has been. I have never wanted a war of aggression. I want to help
our soldiers. I believe they have been lied to about the length
of their tours of duty and that they are doing their best, but they
were never meant to be over there that long. I believe they are
trapped. I think that is awful. I believe Ron Paul wants to save
them and again I feel hope.

Ron Paul wants
to bring an end to the war on drugs. I have seen what this "war"
is doing to the lives of so many people in this country. I see a
"war" that is not waged on people equally. I see a "war"
that has torn apart whole neighborhoods. I see people thrown in
jail unequally in terms of race. That hurts my soul. I see people
thrown in jail for doing almost nothing. I cannot understand how
alcohol and caffeine are legal and other substances are not. I cannot
understand how one person can go to a doctor for a prescription
for a substance, but if another person takes that same substance
without the prescription they can go to jail for life (if they have
done it for a third time). How does that make any sense?

I see whole
families ripped apart over and over as men are rotting in prison
while women try to raise the children alone and all over a non-violent
crime where no one got hurt. I see rapists and murderers get less
time than a person who does crack. I cannot understand that and
again, my soul aches. I believe Ron Paul wants to help these people
and end this awful "war" and again, I have hope.

Over and over
Ron Paul does things to restore my liberty and my freedoms. I feel
the hope that the chains will drop and I will be free. I long for
the day that I do not have to feel afraid when I make a comment
on a telephone in jest. I yearn for the time when I get to keep
the fruits of my labor. I hope that someday I will once again be
able to see a way to save for the future. Right now, it seems silly
to put any money away as it loses its value day after day. I work
harder, put in more hours and still I have less buying power than
I did twenty years ago. I am swimming as fast as I can only to find
I have not moved an inch. Ron Paul wants to end the things that
create monetary inflation and again, I am filled with hope. I can
only dream what it would be like to actually get ahead.

Ron Paul is
my hope. He has shown me that my dreams can happen. He has taught
me that I don't have to give up, there is one person out there working
for me. For me. Imagine that? I am not a big corporation, I am not
rich, and here is a politician who wants to become President to
make my life freer, to make other people's lives freer, to end some
of the dreadful suffering so many are facing. Here is a man that
does not believe we should accept the byline that "life isn't
fair." He seems to think life should be fair and he will work
towards that end.

Whether or
not Ron Paul wins, I feel that hope is not gone in this country.
The great land of America is still here. It just may be buried a
little right now.

I never understood
campaigning for a candidate before. I have never donated money to
a campaign before. I barely ever spoke of politics and certainly
couldn't have cared less before. Now, I finally have a man to vote
FOR. Whether I get to pull a lever or have to write his name on
a card, nothing will feel sweeter than voting for Ron Paul.

November
23, 2007

Sandra
Hamilton [send her mail]
is a retired attorney.

DIGG THIS

If Americans have Stockholm Syndrome, Dr. Ron Paul has the cure.
Stockholm
syndrome
is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage,
in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker,
regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage
has been placed. Stockholm syndrome is also sometimes discussed
in reference to other situations with similar tensions, such as
battered person syndrome and the prisoner/interrogator relationship.
As I watch the field of Presidential candidates and the way the
American people respond to them, it appears to me as if many Americans
have a form of Stockholm syndrome. It seems the people have been
abused for so long that they no longer believe in their wonderful
American heritage of liberty and have taken to being satisfied with
less and less freedom. Then, these citizens actively protect the
very politicians that are working to usurp their freedom.

Freedom is
a precious thing. Once lost it is very difficult to get back. Yet
today, you are much more likely to hear "there ought to be
a law…" than "they ought to repeal a law." People
have become used to and in fact protective and supportive of their
hostage takers. And yes, I do call it hostage-taking when you must
beg the government to grant you a license to work in many fields.
I call it hostage taking when the government owns your wages and
gets to decide how much of them they are generously going to allow
you to keep this week. I call it hostage taking when after you have
paid off your house you still have to pay the government rent in
perpetuity just to able to stay there (they call it property taxes).
Worse yet, you have no power to be able to negotiate with your abductor.
You are truly powerless.

In spite of
all of this, Americans still clamor for more laws, more government
power, and less control over their own lives every day. They want
the government to take care of us from cradle to grave no matter
how little the pittance that is kicked back to them. Never mind
that you most likely will never see a dime of Social Security money
if you are under 30. Forget the fact that the more the government
takes charge of our schools the less our children learn. You wouldn't
want the government to take over the press so that all of your
information came directly from the government, so why do you want
them to be in charge of all the information that your children learn?

Well America,
it is time to get some much-needed help. It is time to see your
captors for what they are: great big bullies who want to take as
much of your money as possible but not so much that you stop working.
They have an agenda. This agenda does not have your best interests
at heart. In case you have no idea how bad things have become, read
this.
No really, please stop and read it.

Your typical
politician wants to get elected, steal as much as they can get in
the time they have, and then flee before the whole place starts
to crumble. The Bush team has managed to somehow take more than
any other administration in history and now the whole country is
on the verge of bankruptcy. We are coming to the point when hyper-inflation
may take over and we will need wheelbarrows full of these fiat dollars
just to buy a loaf of bread. Our Social Security will be gone and
our savings so eroded by inflation that we will be wishing we had
bought something tangible – anything at all – back when our money
had some value.

This is a very
volatile moment in our history. We are at a crossroads. We can continue
down the path of self-destruction, avoiding all knowledge of what
our captors are up to, accepting the calming words of the mainstream
media designed to placate us and go back to watching Desperate Housewives.
Or we can snap out of it, read a few books, get our news from reliable
sources on the Internet, stop filling our heads with the manipulations
of the mainstream media and stop begging for more foxes to guard
the henhouse.

It is time
to wake up and realize that we NEED our freedoms and our liberties
in order to be able to live free lives. It is time to start fighting
for our lives again: Time to stop allowing the nanny state to spy
on us, time to object to databases being kept on us, time to get
those Orwellian cameras off of every corner. We need to pay attention
to the bills that are being voted on, and speak up when they trample
on our freedom. Leviathan has gotten out of control. You can now
either choose to continue down the path towards total socialism
or you can stand up and fight. Fight for what we claim to hold dear
in this country: liberty and freedom. It is time to really support
the troops: the troops that fought the Revolutionary War.

This Presidential
race will reveal the mental health of the American citizenry. We
have one man running who is a true patriot. He is a doctor and knows
what affliction plagues this country… and what the cure is. He wants
to be President not to run your life or even to run the country,
but to restore American principles in this country so we can find
out what it feels like to be free. As he stated
in Seattle: “I see the Constitution as being written precisely for
one purpose – to restrain the power of government; never to
restrain the people.” He offers hope for freedom but you have to
leave the safety of your confinement to get it. He offers liberty,
but you have to let go of your captor's apron-strings to use it.
He offers an end to the Income tax, but you have to dare to dream
it possible and stop listening to hostage-takers whispering in your
ear that the country will fall apart without it. (In case you haven't
figured it out by now, they are lying to you. The country can survive
quite well without an Income tax and did so for over a hundred and
thirty seven years.)

You have only
one opportunity to get Big Brother off of your back. If you don't
take it now, by the next election, the Internet may be so regulated
and taxed that this kind of free speech will be forever quashed.
The mainstream media is worse than useless; it is actually part
of the problem. Newspapers are increasingly filled with more opinions
than facts. Your television news is often nothing more than stories
about how to lose weight and White House press releases designed
to look like news. The Internet is the last (and newest) bastion
of freedom that we have. Use it before it is lost. Use it to find
out about and support the only man who cares about you and your
freedoms.

Who is this
great statesman to whom I am referring? Who is your one choice between
freedom, liberty and prosperity or indentured servitude to a government
pretending to keep you safe? His name is Ron Paul and he has been
working in Congress for twenty years trying to protect you. He voted
against the war in Iraq, he wants to strengthen our borders at home,
he has never voted to regulate the Internet, he votes against every
single bill that does not meet the strict standards of the Constitution.
Tragically, many people think that our rights come from that document.
Not so. The U.S. Constitution is a promise that the Federal government
will never violate man's inalienable rights that are naturally endowed
and predate ANY government. How backwards has our understanding
become when we think that we must search for our rights in a piece
of paper?

People laugh
at the idea that we should heed our founding fathers' warnings against
letting government get out of control as being old fashioned. Nothing
could be further from the truth. We need those protections now more
than ever. Do you think it is a coincidence that as soon as we got
completely off of the gold standard inflation started rising as
never before and shows no signs of stopping? Inflation comes from
inflating the money supply, printing more dollars out of thin air,
which makes the dollars in your pocket worth less than before and
therefore prices go up. The government decides how much inflation
there will be each year and that is yet another tax that you pay
that you don't even see. You just know that you are working harder
and harder, making more and more money that can buy less and less.

In fact, no
one really knows how much money we pay in taxes every year because
so much of it is hidden in higher prices on goods due to tariffs,
higher costs of food due to farm subsidies, the hidden taxes in
the gas you buy, the extra cost of that drink after work to pay
for the money the owner had to pay for the liquor license, etc.,
etc., etc.

If you want
your one chance to have a man who understands all that I have written
about and ever so much more, if you want to get out from under the
government's thumb once and for all, if you want to keep your hard-earned
money so you can purchase education and health care on your own
terms, then you have only one choice running for President: Ron
Paul.

When you are
finished with this article, please pass it along to someone you
care about. There is hope America. You just have to believe it is
possible. Dare to dream. Dare to live outside the cage.

November
15, 2007

Sandra
Hamilton [send her mail]
is a retired attorney.

DIGG THIS

The latest
move by the mainstream media against Ron Paul is to call him a Libertarian
whenever they can fit it into the story.  One after another,
the pundits work the word in and attempt to make it sound as fringe
as possible.  The funny part about all of this is that it is
not working and having quite the opposite effect. After all, Libertarian
just means that you value liberty. How is that an insult? 

Most Americans
are Libertarians as children, when we are innocent and learn our
basic morals. Children learn to share with each other, respect each
other’s toys, not to steal, and not to be bullies.  It is only
as one grows more “sophisticated” that a person begins to internalize
the cognitive dissonance and lies that are told to us by our government. 
At some point we go from knowing deep in our hearts that theft is
wrong, to accepting the concept of taxation. Somewhere along the
way, we accept that it is perfectly okay to take (steal) from
person A to give some of it to person B, some of it to the government
for all their trouble in making the transfer, and the majority of
it to end up serving corporate interests. 

At some point
in our lives we start to believe that it is morally right to go
to other countries and tell them who should be in power and that
anything the great United States says must be followed by the world
or there will be severe consequences and sanctions.  After
all, we are the United States of America. We know best what is good
for all countries.

We begin to
accept that charity that comes freely from individuals can never
take care of anyone and entitlement programs are born: 
programs that teach the givers to resent the beneficiaries and programs
that teach the recipients to demand more and more.  In the
old days of private charities both sides gained virtue from the
transaction. The givers felt good about themselves and felt needed
and were appreciated. The receivers were grateful, thankful, and
vowed to help out others as soon as they were able. Nowadays, instead
of anyone feeling good or learning moral values from the practice,
both sides learn something ugly, and hatred and scapegoats are born
daily. We have lost something important as a society.

We walk around
knowing that something is wrong deep inside, but we can’t quite
put our finger on it.  It sounds like a nice thing to do to
shout to the government that other countries are in trouble and
we should help them out. However, we neglect to look at the consequences
it costs the poorest in this country. We ignore that our government
has no money of its own, and when we demand that our government
help others, we are actually demanding that they take the money
from the people in this country to accomplish the feat. As children
we would call that theft. As adults we call it compassion?

When someone
points out the damage this forced giving does to the poor in our
own country, we try to push that information down and claim that
there must be a way to help everyone. Sadly, money has its limits.
So does any commodity. You cannot create more just by wishing it.
If we help other countries by simply creating credit for them out
of thin air (essentially printing more dollars) we devalue the currency
here at home and all goods and services go up in price having a
disproportionate effect on the poor and slowly eliminating the middle
class.

On the other
hand, we also want to give money to the poor at home, which sounds
like a noble cause, but again, we must take the money from someone
to give it to them. Instead of offering entitlements, if you let
people keep their entire paycheck, the people could take care of
themselves and the rest would have enough to make their own choice
about which charity they want to support.

Did you know
it costs around seven dollars in transaction costs just to get one
dollar from person A to person B?  Can’t we do better? 
Why is it so hard for people to want to eliminate the middleman? 
Americans are a giving bunch.  We would take care of needy
people.  You would, wouldn’t you?

Being a Libertarian
simply means that you believe in the rights of the ordinary person. 
It means you believe that people should be free to do what they
want as long as they are not hurting anyone.  It means that
you believe that people should be responsible for themselves. 
It also means that you believe in having privacy in your finances
and other personal information. Being a Libertarian means that you
have returned to your once unshakable morality that always made
sense … before you became “sophisticated”… when you were
pure. 

The more the
media calls Ron Paul a Libertarian, the more they compliment him. 
As an added bonus, a lot of his supporters are realizing that deep
down inside, they too believe in freedom and liberty, and are coming
to realize those are the ingredients that are missing from their
lives. However, Ron Paul is not just a Libertarian; he is also a
conservative constitutionalist Republican. With Ron Paul, you get
a person that believes in limited government coercion in people’s
private lives, but also believes in strong national defense. 
You get someone who would rather we have our National Guard here
at home to deal with national disasters such as wildfires and protecting
our borders rather than someone who takes our best trained border
guards and sends them to another continent.

Of course the
Ron Paul message is resonating with people.  Until the Neocons
hijacked the Republican Party, most Republicans leaned in the Libertarian
direction.  Here we have, once again, a Libertarian leaning
Republican and he is drawing tens of thousands back into a party
that frankly — has been dying.  Ron Paul gave a wonderful
speech about the Neocons that can be found
here.  You can even watch it below. Do so; it is worth
your time.

The saddest
part of all of this name calling however, is that the once
strong Republican base is being torn in two by one side that wants
to spend every dime we have building an empire and creating a
world government (the Neocons), and the other side that wants to
stick to the roots of the Republican party and limit the size and
scope of our foreign policy, pay down our debt, and keep the money
to protect the people here at home. 

Ron Paul's
message is even resonating with Democrats who want Big Brother off
of our backs and are worried about the loss of civil liberties that
has taken place in the past several years. Ron Paul brings people
together. Most people say they want a fiscally conservative government
that offers individuals personal freedom but they have to choose
between a party that only offers one half or the other. With Ron
Paul, you get both.

The mainstream
news rarely reports on the wonderful bills put forth by Dr. Paul.
Were you aware that Ron Paul wrote a bill to make Social
Security benefits tax-free?  Did you even know that he
wrote a bill to separate
out the Social Security payments from other money that Congress
spends so that the folks that need the money would always have it? 
(Seniors, when the media tries to scare you to death by saying that
Ron Paul wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare he means
he would eliminate it generations down the road and he would only
eliminate now it for the young people who voluntarily want to opt
out of the system.)  Ron Paul is the only man who has a plan
that will save your benefits by eliminating wasteful spending
on foreign policy. Ron Paul has never voted to give Social Security
money to Congress to spend on other things. Did you know that he
was forced to write a bill that requires
our government to follow the Constitution?  How
sad is it that we have come to a day and age where we need a law
to force our leaders to follow the law?

If the Neo-Conned
Republicans don’t get wise they are going to lose in so many ways. 
First, they will lose one of the greatest patriots to ever run for
President by ignoring his candidacy and making fun of him because
that is the Neo-Con agenda.  Second, they nearly guarantee
a loss to a Democrat next year as the 70% or more Americans who
don’t want the war in Iraq to continue come out to vote and find
only one candidate on the ballot that is anti-war.  (Not one
Republican will say anything more than we can only leave Iraq once
we have our dignity back and have won this war.  Yet no one
is willing or able to give a definition of “winning.") 
As Ron Paul put it, how many Americans have to die so the Neocons
can save face? 

Finally, the
Neo-Conned Republicans will lose the only chance America has of
getting better.  We need free markets to bring
down the price of health care.  We need to return to a
sound money
system to end the inflation tax that destroys the middle class
and kills the poor.  We need to get the Federal Government
out
of our schools so that parents can decide what their children
get taught and the education system can get better.  We need
our children to be taught by multitudes of people with many different
curriculums. You wouldn't want the government to take over the press
and have full control of teaching you information, so why do you
want them to decide all the information your children learn?

We need to
end the IRS
so that workers can have an incentive to work harder, will have
enough money to take care of their families and will not have to
look to the government to support them, and so they can have money
to invest in a brighter future for themselves… and in so
doing, for all of us.

We, Americans,
need Ron Paul.  Ron Paul offers hope and freedom and prosperity
to a country that was once at the top and now has a dollar that
is falling fast.  Ron Paul offers us all the things that we
dream of but have been taught can’t be possible — we don’t know
why they are not possible, but somehow, somewhere along the way,
we accepted that taxes are inevitable and that we as a nation must
control the whole world or it will fall apart without us, no matter
how much it costs us. We have learned to accept that a 40-hour workweek
is part-time, and you really should have both parents working full-time.

The dream we
once believed in can come true. You can keep the fruits of your
labor and we don't have to police the entire world. Not with a Ron
Paul Presidency.  The change wouldn’t happen overnight, but
it would happen and four years from now you would be better off
financially and safer.

So, yeah, go
ahead and call him a Libertarian.  He can take it.  You
might as well call him a patriot while you are at it.

Please click
on the links in this article.  They take you to very important
speeches and bills given and written by Ron Paul. 

If you want
to learn who this man is, read what he believes.  Then you
will understand why so many are so passionate about him.  Have
you seen anyone running down the street shouting Hillary,
Hillary!  How many homemade signs have you seen for Rudy or
Mitt or Fred?  Find out why the people are so intrigued and
inspired by Ron Paul. The interesting part is that the most
learned men and women in our society are becoming enamored with
Ron Paul.  Learn who he is.  If you still don’t like him,
at least you will be informed.  If I have not covered a certain topic
or you want further treatment on a subject, go to the LewRockwell.com
home page and search the Ron
Paul file for articles others have written about him.

There is a
reason the "revolution" is growing. People are tired of
having no voice. People are fed up with having those folks in D.C.
take the people's money and send it to corporations and bail out
the banks with it. People don't need to take it anymore. Ron Paul
is here and Ron Paul is on the people's side. As a pundit recently
stated "A lot of things he says just make sense."

November
9, 2007

Sandra
Hamilton [send her mail]
is a retired attorney.