Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts

Friday, October 03, 2008

1776-2008: America as we knew her, may she rest in peace

Welcome to the New World (Dis)Order, and to the United Socialist States of America. Or is it still the same ol' place?

Just moments ago, Pres. George W. Bush signed into law the "Wall Street Bailout," shortly after the House approved the pork-laden "new" version of the bill they had rejected earlier this week.

Seven hundred billion dollars, a "really big number," in one dollar bills laid end to end, would stretch from the Earth to the Sun over 3,700 times (or 370 or 37,000 — knowledge of math doesn't seem to be a requirement anymore, especially in accounting). That's a lot of macaroni and cheese and tomato soup Main Streeters (and their children's children's children) will have to eat while the Wall Streeters renew their standing orders for caviar and champagne.

If you were against this bailout, how can you in good conscience now vote to elect either senator as U.S. president? Both Barack Obama and John McCain supported and voted for this bill that "gives away the farm" and our country.

Here is the list of U.S. representatives who voted yea and nay on Monday. It will be interesting to see who changed their votes today.

U.S. Representative Ron Paul warned against this financial meltdown many times. As you saw during the primaries, the mainstream media wouldn't let Dr. Paul express his views during the debates, and seldom wrote anything positive about him during his campaign.

Former U.S. Congressman Bob Barr is now the Libertarian Party nominee for president, and is being ignored by the press almost as much as Ron Paul was. If you don't like the direction our country is now heading — and as of today, it's heading in a direction we never thought possible — consider the only alternative we may have left. The bailout votes this week should have proven to the world that there really isn't a dime's worth of difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

Image: The U.S. flag flown upside down is a sign of distress, not of disrespect. Long may she wave.

| | | | |

Sunday, August 31, 2008

R for Revolution

While the world oohs and ahs over sexy librarian Gov. Sarah Palin and the stirring socialist speech of equally inexperienced Sen. Barack Obama, the disenfranchised followers of Rep. Ron Paul roll on.
WASHINGTON (Aug. 30) — There's no room at the Xcel Energy Center for maverick Ron Paul, so his acolytes have packed their cars, hitched rides on "Ronvoys" and will pitch tents at Ronstock '08 in Minneapolis in defiance of next week's GOP convention in St. Paul, Minn.

More than 9,700 tickets had been sold for the Rally for the Republic, which seeks to bring together activists who are anti-war, anti-government regulation, anti-immigration, anti-taxes, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-outsourcing, pro-individual liberty, pro-civil liberties and pro-Paul.

The Ronvoys — fleets of buses and vans carrying Paul's loyalists — were to begin arriving Saturday. A few rally-goers planned to walk from Green Bay, Wis., and join up with Paul for the final miles of their Walk4Freedom. Other attendees are driving, carpooling or flying in for the convention alternative.

Paul, a Texas congressman who failed in a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, considers the rally a celebration of traditional Republican values of limited government — and a poke in the eye of the GOP. They don't plan to crash the Republican party, but to show they and their Campaign for Liberty are not going away.

"No matter how much our message is ignored or ridiculed, as was done in the campaign, no matter how much they did to us, it only energized our grass roots," Paul said.

The rally builds on Paul's presidential bid, in which he set a record for single-day fundraising on the Web and touched a nerve with some disaffected voters, largely in the Republican Party.

In a few Western states, Paul was a serious contender for votes, placing second ahead of Republican John McCain in Nevada and Montana. He drew 14 percent from McCain in New Mexico, a battleground state.

But Paul has no speaking role at the GOP convention. He said his staff made overtures to the party, but nothing came of its efforts.

Republican Party spokeswoman Joanna Burgos said she had to research whether Paul was invited to speak when asked about a convention role for Paul.

"Our focus is really on this side of the river," Burgos said. "We think there's enough excitement and energy on this side." McCain's campaign spokesman did not return a phone message.

Paul's faithful still hope to permeate the ranks of the establishment by winning local and state races and pulling in disenchanted party members. There are a couple dozen Paul delegates attending the GOP convention, though some loyalists say there are more delegates who support Paul.

Meanwhile, their focus is on their own political convergence in Minneapolis.
"We only want to cause noise in the sense of letting people know there are other movements out there that other people believe in," said Kathleen Buchholz, 28, of Denver.

Unable to take time off from school for the rally, Buchholz is attending Tuesday's events, when Paul will speak. She's bypassing sleep to save on hotel costs and flying out early Wednesday.

Rally organizers reported last week they sold all 500 tickets priced at $85 each for their Real Politics Training School scheduled for Sunday. Attendees will learn political-organizing skills and "how to compete and win at the political game," organizers said on the rally Web site.

Speakers at the Paul rally include former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, tax activist Grover Norquist, former California Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr., political commentator Tucker Carlson, former two-term New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and the baby-delivering doctor supporters call Dr. Paul.

A few entertainers also are joining in, such as country star Sara Evans; pop singer Aimee Allen, known for the song "Cooties" from Hairspray but whose favorite song among rally-goers is "Ron Paul Anthem"; and Texas blues guitarist Jimmie Vaughan.

Paul backers who aren't staying at the Minneapolis hotel or a budget motel planned to bunk in group cabins at Camp Ihduhapi on Lake Independence, park RVs or pitch tents at campgrounds or head to a Goodhue, Minn., dairy farm for Ronstock '08, an imitation of the 1960s Woodstock counterculture festival. Organizers there say a neighbor of the farm's owner is donating a cow to feed the flock.

Sonny Thomas of Springboro, Ohio, plans to drive 12 hours to attend the rally, leaving Sunday. He was offering in a Web posting to fit one or two others in his car.

"I feel as one person who stands up, I have a voice and letting it be heard sends fear to the establishment," said Thomas, a gas station manager who was laid off a previous job.

— Suzanne Gamboa, AP
Thanks to Burning Taper reader Diogenes for sending this story.

| | | | |

Sunday, March 23, 2008

After five years in Iraq, has anything been accomplished?

The fifth anniversary of the Fiasco in Iraq passed last week. This "Operation Freedom" once commanded above-the-fold headlines, and was the number one topic in our print, television and Internet news media.

Now, stories from and about Iraq comprise only about three percent of our news.

It isn't sexy or glamorous anymore. It isn't popular anymore. Beating the drums of war doesn't command the respect and inspire the patriotism it did five years ago.

Though "mission accomplished" was declared quite a while back, the Iraq Fiasco has continued, and has now lasted longer than the U.S. Civil War. It has lasted longer than World War I. It has gone on longer than World War II.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee wants to stay in Iraq another 100 years. The Democratic contenders pander to whatever crowd they are talking to, and have no real plans for war or for peace. The only candidate who would have just ended the war was famously ignored by the media (giving rise to the phrase "You lie like Anderson Cooper").

4,000 Americans have been killed. 30,000 men and women have been severely wounded; these soldiers and their families will deal with the ramifications of their injuries for the rest of their lives, and billions of dollars will be spent on their medical treatment and rehabilitation. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died or been injured, and the Iraqi infrastructure has been blown to bits. The Internet counters continue to roll upwards; the price of the Insanity in Iraq has eclipsed $505,000,000,000 (five hundred five billion dollars) in direct costs.

For what? Tell me, please. What has this War in Iraq accomplished?

Bring 'em home. Now.

| | |

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Six possible futures

The presidential candidate field has cleared quite a bit in the past month or so, and the pundits have all but decided who will be the nominee for the Republicans while milking the Democratic run for all they can.

Who do YOU think will be the next President of the United States? Not who do you support or who do you want or who did you or will you vote for, but who do you think will actually become the next president? There are six probabilities, some admittedly less likely than others, but all are at this moment possibilities.

There are six possible futures for our country. Which path do you think we'll collectively follow?

And what will our lives — personally and as a nation — be like in four years?



| | | | |

Monday, January 21, 2008

Ron Paul, Barack Obama lead by wide margins in our presidential primary polls

I'm moving our ongoing Burning Taper presidential primary back to the top of the page, in case there are new readers who may be missing seeing it buried ten articles down.

Moving it to the top again will make it fresh food for Google, too.

This poll has almost as much legitimacy as any other poll you're reading about in the papers. Many "professional" polls have fewer than 800 participants; we're only a magnitude of ten behind that, with (at this writing) 71 people voting in our Democratic primary, and 90 in the Republican primary.

Current results:

Barack Obama is out front in the Democratic field with 39%, followed by John Edwards with 27%, Hillary Clinton with 13%, Dennis Kucinich with 11%, Bill Richardson with 6%, and Mike Gravel with 4%.

In our Republican primary, Ron Paul leads the pack with 48%, with challengers Mike Huckabee at 14%, John McCain and Fred Thompson each at 12%, Mitt Romney at 10%, and Rudolph W. Giuliani barely registering with just 3% of the vote.





| | | | | |

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Ron Paul on Jay Leno

As I'm sure you know, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, the Republican presidential candidate, was excluded from Fox News' "Fair and Balanced" debate Sunday night, despite his respectable showing in last week's Iowa caucuses.

Paul's campaign has recently set records with its phenomenal fundraising. Paul decided to spend some of that money putting on a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire, while the Fox debate was going on.

NBC talk show host Jay Leno invited Ron Paul onto his show Monday night. Leno called Paul's exclusion from the Fox debate "blatantly unfair."





| | | | | |

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Hidden agenda: Mainstream media's political coverage

The publisher of this blog has an agenda. The publisher of every blog has an agenda. The producer of every avenue of expression has an agenda.

Whether the agenda is to get you to buy more widgets, or to get you to believe a certain thing or act a certain way, the act of sharing that agenda via media is an expression of free speech and, by extension, free enterprise.

Media Monsters such as ABC/Disney and Fox/News Corporation who, between them, have filled the minds of three or four generations with garbage while making us happy to dig deep into our wallets to fork over money to them, have agendas, too. It's their jobs to "sell" us pop icons like Britney Spears, Hillary Duff, Miley Cyrus, Zack Efron, and whoever next week's darling will be, movie stars, cartoons, theme parks, stuffed animals and toys, teen whores on MySpace, Bill O'Reilly, newspapers, magazines.... The list of mind-sludge just these two companies produce, and we absorb, is astounding.

Do you realize every woman's childhood dream of marrying a Prince Charming in a big, expensive wedding was programmed into her from watching the Snow White and Cinderella movies (which were well-parodied last month by Disney's new movie Enchanted)? How much of your "knowledge" about aliens and government coverups comes from having watched The X-Files (a Fox TV network show where even one of the main characters was named "Fox")? Tie-ins between movies and toys — always a popular enterprise — reached new heights with Disney's distribution of Toy Story and Toy Story 2, and now tie-ins are ubiquitous. From source to consumer, cradle to grave; the Big Guys own it all. Did you realize even DIRECTV, the television distribution satellite company, is owned by the Fox/News Corporation conglomerate? Oh, you don't watch TV, but like to go to the movies (made by Fox and Disney)? Fox even tells you what to think of the movies they make... they own RottenTomatoes.com, the movie review website.

But why complain? Like reading a blog, our acceptance of the Megacorp Spewage is voluntary. It's freedom of the marketplace. It's American as apple pie. It's what we want and demand.

It is libertarianism in action, in that the entity (even though the entity is a gigantic thousand-armed octopus) has freedom of speech in deciding what materials to present.

So... from a libertarian point of view, ABC and Fox News, being for-profit business operations that indeed do have agendas, have a right to pick and choose which presidential candidates they feature on their own debate programs. Fox News doesn't like Ron Paul, and ABC doesn't like Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel, or Duncan Hunter? Then they don't have to tell us about them.

After all, political debates on a commercial television channel are entertainment. Bread and circuses. The debates aren't designed to give the public insight into the various candidates; the debates are designed to showcase whatever it is that the news media wants to showcase.

CNN, of course, wants to showcase liberal candidates. Fox News wants to highlight conservatives. Wasn't there a debate a while back sponsored by the women's channel Oxygen, or Lifetime, or something, that paid more lip service to Hillary and the other candidates' wives, using them to reach the channel's target audience of women?

All these various agendas of various media outlets are a sign that free enterprise is working in our country.

Unfortunately, it's also prima facie evidence that our entire election process is a sham.

The media — simply by telling us who they favor, for whatever reason — tells us who to vote for through one of the oldest of propaganda tactics, by telling us who others will be voting for. It's called the bandwagon method.

When the campaign for the 2008 presidency began, way back in 2006 or before, the very first thing you heard or read about the candidates was where they stood in polls. Not Hillary is for this, Biden is for that, Obama for the other, but Hillary is at x percent, Biden is at y percent, and Obama at z percent.

As we've seen in the recent Iowa caucuses, and will see again next week in New Hampshire and later in other primaries, polls can be and often are wrong, wrong, wrong. The evil inherent in taking polls, and in paying attention to poll results, is that many people eventually tune out the message of any particular candidate, because "he can't win so why waste my time or my vote?"

I was in a restaurant on the evening of the Iowa caucuses, and for the better part of an hour saw (without sound) Fox News' coverage. At the bottom of the screen, they rotated between the Democratic and Republican results. If I hadn't known better, I would have come away believing there were only four Republican candidates and four Democratic candidates. Even though Democrat Richardson pulled only two percent, he was listed. Ron Paul's 10% on the Republican side was ignored, even though his 10% was significantly closer to Thompson's and McCain's 13% than Richardson's two percent was to next-closest contender Hillary's 29%.

What I'm trying to say is this: The "mainstream press" is no longer (if they ever were) primarily concerned with keeping us informed or with righting wrongs and exposing corruption in order to make things better in society, and they are certainly not at all about being "fair and balanced." The press has agenda... and if you think things through, you might see that their agenda isn't necessarily good for your agenda in the short- or the long-run.

Stay vigilant. Don't be fooled by the smoke and mirrors of the mainstream. Read the mainstream, to be sure, but only while wearing your "high-waders" to protect you from the deep, deep doo-doo.

Read international newspapers and websites. You'll often be surprised at what American news stories look like when you take away the Fox, CNN, or ABC
CBS/NBC network news spin, and see ourselves through a European spinner's eyes.

And read blogs. Lots of them. From writers all over the political, religious, social and "moral" spectrum. Sure, they have agendas. But they're usually obvious agendas, not hidden behind a pretense of being a "public service."

It's your Web 2.0. Embrace it. Utilize it. Treasure it.

Before Rupert Murdoch owns it.

Image: Hidden Agenda

| | | | |

Monday, December 31, 2007

You might be a libertarian...

Though he holds office as a Republican, it is no secret that U.S. Rep. Dr. Ron Paul is a libertarian. In fact, he ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988.

This article is not about being a Libertarian. It is about being a libertarian.

You might be one yourself.

Take these online quizzes and see if you can label yourself politically: | | | | |

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Hotties 4 Ron Paul

If you're a regular reader of The Burning Taper, you'll remember the firestorm a couple of weeks ago, when my endorsement of U.S. Rep. Dr. Ron Paul for President was met with critical commentary about whether a Freemason should publicly endorse a political candidate.

If you missed it, or just want to relive the fun we all had, read "'Burning Taper' endorses Dr. Ron Paul for President" and "'Every generation needs a new revolution.'" and the associated comments. (Sorry — the comments that ignited the issue were later deleted by their author.)

The Iowa caucuses are this week, and the New Hampshire primary is just over a week away. I wouldn't be a very good endorser of my candidate if I didn't do a bit of politicking for him this week.

You may have noticed I like to post photos of attractive women whenever I can appropriately do so without straying too far from the point of an article. For example, I used a photo of Diane Kruger instead of Nicolas Cage in a story about National Treasure: Book of Secrets and Freemasonry, and way back in July, 2006 I used a photo of Hugh Hefner and six hot blondes to accent a story about Muslim conspiracy theories.

But apparently I've digressed into the Land of Tangent. It's taken me five six paragraphs to get to the point of this post.

Singer Juliet Annerino, a Ron Paul supporter, has created a pin-up calendar called "Hotties 4 Ron Paul." Forty percent of sales are donated to the Ron Paul campaign. The calender is tastefully G-rated, featuring attractive women and select quotations about freedom by Ron Paul and other great statesman, authors, and visionaries.

"Hotties 4 Ron Paul" also has a page at MySpace.com.

The lovely lady atop this article is Michelle Shinghal, a longtime Libertarian. She is featured on the month of March page of the calendar. Michelle blogs at LibertarianLady.com. She is a former stripper, and has been interviewed many times on television recently regarding her support for Ron Paul. She currently serves as chairman of Collin County, Texas Libertarian Party, a position she has held since March, 2002.



| | | | |

Sunday, December 16, 2007

'Every generation needs a new revolution'

Bro. Theron Dunn, Masonic pontificator extraordinaire, has graced this blog twice thrice already voicing disapproval of my recent endorsement of U.S. Rep. Dr. Ron Paul.

I'm usually on the right track when he disagrees with me. And this time, I've also "disappointed" him. Man, I know I'm on the right track!

Bro. Dunn wrote: "It is one thing for a man to say: I support Fred Thompson, or I support Hillary Clinton, or in this case, Ron Paul; it is another to stand up as a Mason and say I support whatever candidate."

Let me climb to the highest soapbox — nay, let me write it in big bright 23-feet tall neon letters upon the side of a blimp hovering over Boston Harbor on this, the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party: "I am a Mason and I support Ron Paul!"

Bro. Dunn constantly writes here, there and everywhere about how much he loves his grand lodge and Masonry "just like it is." Much of his writing on his blog and on various forums make him seem almost like a paid shill for mainstream, grand lodge American Masonry, constantly singing the praises of the grand lodge system, oblivious to what we've seen in many jurisdictions across America where the system is being used to attempt to silence brothers who think outside the current Masonic box. In just the past few months and years, we've seen improper and/or illegal abuse of power by grand masters in Georgia, Alabama, West Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona, and even his home state of California, where recently membership in certain Masonic-themed groups was outlawed by an edict by their grand master.

"But you swore to uphold the rules and obey all those guys in gold chains and black suits," we constantly hear....

No — we didn't.

We promised that if such constitutions, laws and edicts did not violate our obligations to God, our country, our neighbors, our families and most importantly, ourselves and our consciences, we would keep that "obligation."

It's often said that our Declaration of Independence, our U.S. Constitution and our original American ideals were based on Masonic principles, and many of our founding fathers and early presidents were Masons.

Curiously, one founding father, Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, has never been shown to have been a Freemason, though he was probably the most philosophical and Masonic of them all.

I've often wondered why he never became a Mason, when most of those around him were. Certainly he had the opportunity had he had wanted to.

There are only two places in Washington, D.C. I really care to visit: The Smithsonian Museum and the Jefferson Memorial.

I've seen all the monuments, sat in Congress, admired the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and toured the White House. I think I was about twelve or thirteen the first time I was there, where my family and I spent a week.

In the ensuing years, I've been back to D.C. many times, often putting up with the horrendous traffic just to make a side trip into town when nearby on a roadtrip further north, to visit my former in-laws in Pennsylvania, or to the east to see my relatives in Delaware.

On these excursions into the nation's capital, I only want to go to one place: The Jefferson Memorial.

I remember the first time I was there. I stood in awe in that circular building, gazing not upon the statue of Thomas Jefferson, but focused on his engraved words which circumscribe the wall:
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
I swore that oath, too, when I was but a boy. No philosophy has ever superseded it. No oath shall ever be greater.

I have stood in that great hall many times since, committing that phrase to memory. That statement is what induced me to be a libertarian and an outspoken critic against all attempts to ban or suppress free thought, free speech and free expression. I support anyone's right to say and think whatever they want... as long as they don't attempt to use their "authority" to suppress the rights of others, including myself, to say and think what we want.

Perhaps the reason Jefferson didn't become a Mason was that while he supported the original tenets of Freemasonry (as do I), he could not abide the "some men are more equal than others" grand lodge system that attempts to force "peace and harmony" by silencing those who think differently than those in positions of power.

Jefferson also wrote, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." With that statement, he predicted today's mainstream American Freemasonry, where a tiny minority rules a group of good men who never speak up when it matters.

With the above statement and this one — "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories" — he predicted our 21st century America.

And with this quotation, Jefferson set a course for our future, as Americans and as Freemasons: "Every generation needs a new revolution."

Image: "The Destruction of Tea at Boston Harbor." From an 1846 lithograph.

| | | | | |

Saturday, December 15, 2007

'Burning Taper' endorses Dr. Ron Paul for President

Today's political news brings us the woman whose husband didn't inhale reefer smoke apologizing to her opponent for making references to his admitted use of marijuana and cocaine as a teenager. On the other side of the aisle, the various "religious" candidates are poking each other in the eye with pointed crucifixes over whose God is bigger than whose.

It's painfully clear that none of the "major" candidates running for the U.S. presidency are qualified to be school crossing-guards, much less president of the United States of America.

Despite the supposed differences between candidates, should America elect Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee or that actor guy — the country will continue to slip-slide away from our once-proud ideals. Debt will continue to mount, personally and nationally. We'll entangle ourselves in further senseless wars, at home and abroad. Gas prices and taxes will continue to rise, and home values may continue to plummet as foreclosures increase. Much of the rest of the world will keep on hating us. Our Constitutional freedoms will continue to evaporate.

While the press bombards us with the daily antics of these seven clowns and buffoons, pretending there are no other candidates in the race, U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas is getting his message heard via the Internet.

I first heard of (and voted for) Ron Paul when he ran for president in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. Then, as now, he was all but ignored by the mainstream media.

Why has the mainstream media ignored him? Because what he says makes sense, and if his policies were enacted, we'd soon live in a significantly different, and in my opinion, better world, a world in which much of the status quo would be overturned. Dr. Paul's message doesn't play well with entrenched pundits and mega-corp advertisers who thrive on keeping America titillated by sensationalist gossip, mudslinging and flag-waving while ignoring more serious, fundamental issues.

Who is Ron Paul?
Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.
Some background on Ron Paul as a U.S. representative:
  • He has never voted to raise taxes.
  • He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
  • He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
  • He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
  • He has never taken a government-paid junket.
  • He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
  • He voted against the Patriot Act.
  • He voted against regulating the Internet.
  • He voted against the Iraq war.
  • He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
  • He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
  • Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Ron Paul is the only candidate running for president whose record indicates an unwavering support of liberty and freedom.

The Burning Taper joins with countless other voices across the nation and across the Internet to support Dr. Ron Paul's campaign for president.

Last week a group of academics from across the U.S. endorsed Ron Paul, in part with these words:
A Paul administration would dramatically reduce the size and scope of the federal government over our lives and liberties. President Paul will work to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, emphasize free trade and diplomacy over confrontation, cease the war on drugs, which has destroyed the lives and liberties of the poor in inner cities, and end our error-ridden system of federal capital punishment. To accomplish these goals, and ensure that those in greatest need do not suffer during the transition, Paul will bring home the troops and abandon our ruinously expensive and futile effort to police the world.

Paul is the only presidential candidate with a proven record of defending academic freedom across-the-board. He has stood against efforts by both the political right and left to restrict the free discourse of ideas in higher education. He strongly opposes the use of speech codes to restrict academic freedom. For the same reason, he has spoken out against the so-called Academic Bill of Rights and other proposals that would empower politicians to impose "ideological balance" in the classroom. As Paul points out, these "speech codes of the right" would, if implemented, create a chilling effect on free and creative academic inquiry and teaching.
I couldn't have written it better myself. A Paul presidency would restore and renew our country, returning us to the ideals of which we still boast but seldom (or never) practice.

The Widow's Son and The Burning Taper endorse Dr. Ron Paul for President to restore the American principles of peace, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government. You are urged to vote for Dr. Paul in your state's Republican primary.

Related link: Ron Paul's official campaign site

Image: U.S. Representative (R-Texas) Dr. Ron Paul

| | | |

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

The Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

Recapturing the Spirit of Independence by U.S. Rep. Dr. Ron Paul

This week Americans will gather around the grill, attend parades and watch fireworks displays, all in the celebration of the signing of our Declaration of Independence. At the same time, we will have thousands of bureaucrats, troops and agents stationed in countries across the globe being paid by American tax dollars.

On the anniversary of our declaring our own independence from the British, it is certainly appropriate that we reflect on the nature and spirit of independent nationhood. While our founding fathers were individual men in a historically unique situation, they posited that the principles upon which they rested our national independence were timeless.

If we truly honor the men who brought about Independence Day, we would do well to spend at least as much time reflecting on the Declaration of Independence, and the principles upon which it is based, as we spend at the cookouts, parades, and fireworks displays. With the trend toward globalism that has been with us for the past century, we should be specifically thoughtful about how our celebration of independence can be made consistent with the policies that have been advocated by the American government – as well as many of the nation’s elite – or what we used to call the Eastern Establishment.

I believe there is no way to square our nation’s traditions and reverence for independence with the globalist policies these elites are currently pursuing. The American concept of independent nationhood inscribed in our Declaration cannot be maintained if we are going to pursue a policy that undermines the independence of other nations. National independence is an idea, and the erosion of the independence of other nations only serves to erode that idea.

At the same time, if we allow the erosion of that idea, by ignoring it in certain instances, we will be contributing to its erosion in all times and nations, even our own. In this way our nation’s independence is linked with the independence of all nations. The sooner we realize this truth, and enact a foreign policy that is consistent with it, the sooner we will be able to recapture the spirit of independence.

In addition, as our founding fathers understood, the idea of national independence is inseparable from that of constitutional republicanism. Only the safeguards and limitations that are enshrined in a constitutionally-limited republic can prohibit a nation from lurching toward empire. Recognizing these same protections is also the very best way to eliminate the need for civil wars and the violence of civil strife.

Moreover, this constitutional republicanism is essential to protecting the individual rights and self-determination that is at the heart of our Declaration. As we celebrate the 231ist anniversary of our nation’s birth, I hope every person who reads or hears this will take the time to go back and read the Declaration of Independence. Only by recapturing the spirit of independence can we ensure our government never resembles the one from which the American States declared their separation.

— U.S. Rep. Dr. Ron Paul of Texas



IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
What Happened to The Signers

— The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America



Have you ever wondered what happened to the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence? This is the price they paid:

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or hardships resulting from the Revolutionary War.

These men signed, and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor!

What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers and large plantation owners. All were men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

Perhaps one of the most inspiring examples of "undaunted resolution" was at the Battle of Yorktown. Thomas Nelson, Jr. was returning from Philadelphia to become Governor of Virginia and joined General Washington just outside of Yorktown. He then noted that British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headqurt, but that the patriot's were directing their artillery fire all over the town except for the vicinity of his own beautiful home. Nelson asked why they were not firing in that direction, and the soldiers replied, "Out of respect to you, Sir." Nelson quietly urged General Washington to open fire, and stepping forward to the nearest cannon, aimed at his own house and fired. The other guns joined in, and the Nelson home was destroyed. Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis's Long Island home was looted and gutted, his home and properties destroyed. His wife was thrown into a damp dark prison cell without a bed. Health ruined, Mrs. Lewis soon died from the effects of the confinement. The Lewis's son would later die in British captivity, also.

"Honest John" Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she lay dying, when British and Hessian troops invaded New Jersey just months after he signed the Declaration. Their thirteen children fled for their lives. His fields and his grist mill were laid to waste. All winter, and for more than a year, Hart lived in forests and caves, finally returning home to find his wife dead, his children vanished and his farm destroyed. Rebuilding proved too be too great a task. A few weeks later, by the spring of 1779, John Hart was dead from exhaustion and a broken heart.

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.

New Jersey's Richard Stockton, after rescuing his wife and children from advancing British troops, was betrayed by a loyalist, imprisoned, beaten and nearly starved. He returned an invalid to find his home gutted, and his library and papers burned. He, too, never recovered, dying in 1781 a broken man.

William Ellery of Rhode Island, who marveled that he had seen only "undaunted resolution" in the faces of his co-signers, also had his home burned.

Only days after Lewis Morris of New York signed the Declaration, British troops ravaged his 2,000-acre estate, butchered his cattle and drove his family off the land. Three of Morris' sons fought the British.

When the British seized the New York houses of the wealthy Philip Livingston, he sold off everything else, and gave the money to the Revolution. He died in 1778.

Arthur Middleton, Edward Rutledge and Thomas Heyward, Jr. went home to South Carolin tight. In the British invasion of the South, Heyward was wounded and all three were captured. As he rotted on a prison ship in St. Augustine, Heyward's plantation was raided, buildings burned, and his wife, who witnessed it all, died. Other Southern signers suffered the same general fate.

Among the first to sign had been John Hancock, who wrote in big, bold script so George III "could read my name without spectacles and could now double his reward for 500 pounds for my head." If the cause of the revolution commands it, roared Hancock, "Burn Boston and make John Hancock a beggar!"

Here were men who believed in a cause far beyond themselves.

Such were the stories and sacrifices of the America revolution. These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

— Anonymous

Update: A reader pointed out that snopes.com has checked the accuracy of the above anonymous article, and labeled the stories "some true, some false." The above anonymous article first came to snopes.com's attention in 1999.

| | | | |