What Really Divides Us?

On daily basis, watching news and reading articles on internet, I'm overwhelmed with the concept of how people's conscious runs amok. Are we really voting for or against a candidate based on the person's genetic traits (skin and gender) long before we understand their political views on how our country should be??? We called ourselves evolved, I question that. What are your values as an American citizen? What do you want to see happen? What would make you feel good as a person? What will give you goosebumps? I did research on Ron Paul to see if he's racist, and people have been saying that he is or he isn't. Should we reject white supremacists for supporting Ron Paul, especially when Ron believes that all humans are created equal, and wants us all to go back to the basic: United States Constitution. Do we even understand the US Constitution? It brings me to the point to share an article that was posted in Facebook discussion board by Candice Watson:

What Really Divides Us?

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

December 24, 2002

The overwhelming media response to recent remarks by Senator Trent Lott shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term "states’ rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states’ rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.

Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.

Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.

Source Link:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

Declaration of Independence: Efforts To Obtain Justice From Great Britain

It's sure important for us to re-educate ourselves about history, since I am seeing the fact that repetition of our error ways has created apathy, anger, and confusion. In this section of Declaration of Independence: Efforts to Obtain Justice From Great Britain, it feels, in current sense, like "Declaration of Independence: Effort To Obtain Justice from Bush Administration"... doesn't it?

33. 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.

34. 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.

Source Link:

http://www.nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm?const.html&2

Is Ron Paul Racist?

I noticed that it's very common for the general public to avoid discussion or expressing the concern about Racism. Granted, every human being has flaws, and they usually try to sweep them under the rug, or keep them in the shadow. I'd like to ask the public: Is Ron Paul Racist?
If you believe so, please do explain productively why you would believe that he is. I've found two articles that point out the possibility that people misunderstood him, or the possibility that he is one.

Why Do Racists Back Ron Paul (1)
By David Knowles

Oct 26th 2007 9:04AM

In his bid for the presidency, Texas Congressman Ron Paul has been endorsed by such white supremacist groups as Stormfront, Vanguard News, and the Nationalist Coalition. But does being supported by a hate group mean that you, too, are guilty of the same bigotry as its members? As Thomas B. Edsall wrote at the Huffington Post:

The Paul campaign dismissed the pro-Paul activities among these groups. "We don't know who these people are," said Jesse Benton, Paul's communications director. Their support has "nothing to do with Ron Paul, and what he stands for... His message of freedom, peace and prosperity--that's why people support him."

If there is an overlapping philosophy among white supremacists and Dr. Paul, it arises out of a shared disdain for the federal government. Abolishing the IRS and the Department of Education, trashing the Patriot Act, and a strict adherence to a doctrine of States' Rights -- these libertarian ideas have traction with many Americans, including those who want to keep the races from mingling.

Then again, there may also be another source for the impression that Paul has bigoted tendencies, as he himself explained in a June interview.

Muckraker Report: In a 1992 newsletter, arguing that government should lower the age at which juvenile criminals can be protected as adults, you wrote, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." In the same newsletter, you also wrote, "What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on the grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" Obviously, there are many Americans and not just blacks and Asians, who would find these comments upsetting. What would you say to these people?

Congressman Ron Paul: In 1992, I was back in medicine full time, but lent my name to a foundation that published large volumes of material. A staffer wrote some things under my name that I did not approve. I have taken responsibility for these comments and apologized. If you look at my 30-year record and my numerous writings on the subject of race, I think anyone will clearly see that these comments do not reflect my beliefs.

And what of Dr. Paul's specific writings on race? Earlier this year, the candidate addressed the Don Imus controversy, and stuck to a strict freedom of speech argument:

Let's be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can't change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

His point is well taken, but with all due respect, it did take passing laws and regulations to rid the country of slavery and segregation, to say nothing of affording women the right to vote.

Of course, politics is largely about forging symbolic connections. Just this week, the conservative website RedState decided it wanted to end its affiliation with Paul supporters, not because of some of their views on racial equality, but because it deems them too aggressive in the comment section. So much for freedom of speech.

But back to the larger point. Since no candidate can possibly agree with each and every position a diverse group of voters may have, alliances are often formed which seem, to some, like a case of strange bedfellows. Just ask Mitt Romney (Bob Jones III). Or Hillary Clinton (Norman Hsu). In Dr. Paul's case, it just so happens that his libertarian rhetoric has brought him into the homes of many of our most staunchly racist citizens.

To His Dismay, Ron Paul Becoming Magnet for White Supremacists (2)

October 15, 2007 09:30 PM

Through no fault of his own, Rep. Ron Paul's anti-globalist, anti-government campaign for the Republican presidential nomination has become a magnet in neo-Nazi networks, pulling in activists and supporters from the fringe white nationalist community where anti-Semitism, anti-black and anti-immigrant views are commonplace.

In some cases, these internet-based activists acknowledge that even though the Paul campaign does not have a racist or anti-Semitic agenda, it can serve as a vehicle to find sympathizers and to recruit new loyalists drawn to the Republican congressman's opposition to international trade agreements, federal police authority and to the income tax.

Such web-based organizations as Stormfront (motto: "White Pride, World Wide"), Vanguard News Network ("No Jews. Just Right.") and the Nationalist Coalition ("working to create the relationships that will lay the foundation for the White community that is necessary to our survival") have become sources of support for Paul's bid for the Republican nomination, and in some cases have set up separate Ron Paul discussion groups.

The Paul campaign dismissed the pro-Paul activities among these groups. "We don't know who these people are," said Jesse Benton, Paul's communications director. Their support has "nothing to do with Ron Paul, and what he stands for....His message of freedom, peace and prosperity - that's why people support him."

Paul has not made racist or anti-Semitic appeals to the controversial organizations and their members. Instead, their support is based on Paul's libertarian opposition to government generally, including the IRS and the powers granted to the federal government under the Patriot Act - views that are shared by many on the conservative fringe of the spectrum.

In the 2000 campaign, Patrick J. ("Pat") Buchanan appealed to many similar individuals and organizations. Buchanan had a history of expressing views that were often interpreted as anti-Semitic.

Writing on the Vanguard News Network, "White Will" argued that "folks, get involved in the Ron Paul 'revolution' and work with political activists in your communities who are attracted to his anti-globalist message.... Most of you would be surprised at how many good people can be exposed to a, let's say, 'pro-majority' message among the remarkable groundswell of fed up, mostly White Ron Paul supporters -- many, early on, from the 9/11 truth movement. They are finding their backbones as they are exposed to more and more hidden truths, especially about the hidden hand of Jewry behind every foul venture."

Among those backing Paul this year is John J. Ubele, the National Coalition's Operations Manager. In an emailed reply to an inquiry, Ubele said, "I know that Ron Paul is not a white separatist or a white nationalist. However, he is the most honest and responsible of all the presidential candidates and that is why I support his candidacy."

The National Coalition is one of a number of splinter groups that formed after the death of William Luther Pierce, author of The Turner Diaries, and founder of the now fractured National Alliance. The Turner Diaries were considered crucial to the thinking of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

On a Stormfront discussion thread on the Paul Campaign - "The Ron Paul Revolution" -- one contributor wrote in:

"Not standing up for Ron Paul against the un-American Jewish media and neo-cons who will do anything to stop his nomination is like not standing up to the efforts to force integration, to encourage mass non-White immigration, or to the attack on the USS Liberty."

"Ron Paul is NOT a White Nationalist. His Libertarian policies will also conflict with National Socialism, something that a good number of Stormfront members support. However, he is the least toxic candidate by leaps and bounds," wrote a contributor identified as "Concerned Human."

A minority of the contributors to white nationalist web sites insist on rigid adherence to their racial views. "Anything less than ALL is NOTHING. If anythings priority is not 100% the survival of the White Race, than it is a problem and not a solution. Ron Paul's priority is not 100% the survival of the white race, so he is an enemy and a burden just as much as any jew," wrote "comJo, Pan-Aryan Insurgent."

The white nationalist and anti-Semitic support flowing to the Paul campaign reflects one of the difficulties facing candidates who do not fall into the midstream: that often their views on less controversial subjects like trade and the power of the federal government to take property through eminent domain also appeal to extremist groups.

Source Links:
(1) http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/10/26/is-ron-paul-racist/
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/15/to-his-dismay-ron-paul-b_n_68575.html

Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars

Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars

Since Raul Castro seems to be transitioning to a more permanent position of power, the administration has begun talking about Cuba policy again. One would think we would be able to survey the results of the last 45 years and come to logical conclusions. Changing course never seems to be an option, however, no matter how futile or counterproductive our past actions have been.

The Cuban embargo began officially in 1962 as a means to put pressure on the communist dictatorship to change its ways. After 45 years, the Cuban economy has struggled, but Cuba 's dictatorship is no closer to stepping to the beat of our drum. Any ailments have consistently and successfully been blamed on US Capitalism instead of Cuban Communism. They have substituted trade with others for trade with the US , and are "awash" with development funds from abroad. Our isolationist policies with regards to Cuba , meanwhile, have hardly won the hearts and minds of Cubans or Cuban-Americans, many of whom are isolated from families because this political animosity.

In the name of helping Cubans, the US administration is calling for "multibillions" of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid and subsidies for internet access, education and business development for Cubans under the condition that the Cuban government demonstrates certain changes. In the same breath, they claim lifting the embargo would only help the dictatorship. This is exactly backwards. Free trade is the best thing for people in both Cuba and the US . Government subsidies would enrich those in power in Cuba at the expense of already overtaxed Americans!

The irony of supposed Capitalist, free-marketeers inducing Communists to freedom with government hand-outs should not be missed. We call for a free and private press in Cuba while our attempts to propagandize Cubans through the US government run Radio/TV Marti has wasted $600 million in American taxpayer dollars.

It's time to stop talking solely in terms of what's best for the Cuban people. How about the wishes of the American people, who are consistently in favor of diplomacy with Cuba ? Let's stop the hysterics about the freedom of Cubans – which is not our government's responsibility – and consider freedom of the American people, which is. Americans want the freedom to travel and trade with their Cuban neighbors, as they are free to travel and trade with Vietnam and China . Those Americans who do not wish to interact with a country whose model of governance they oppose are free to boycott. The point being – it is Americans who live in a free country, and as free people we should choose who to buy from or where to travel, not our government.

Our current administration is perceived as irrelevant, at best, in Cuba and the message is falling on deaf ears there. If the administration really wanted to extend the hand of friendship, they would allow the American people the freedom to act as their own ambassadors through trade and travel. Considering the lack of success government has had in engendering friendship with Cuba , it is time for government to get out of the way and let the people reach out.

Source Link:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=968

H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.

`For purposes of this subtitle:

`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs. (1)

This may seem agreeable with the Constitution's preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (2)

However, individual's right to stand up against the government, Declaration of Independence:

In Congress, July 4, 1776, The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

INTRODUCTION

1. 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.

THE FOUNDATIONS OF FREE GOVERNMENT

2. 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.

3. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown 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.

4. 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. (2)

(1) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
(2) http://www.nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm?const.html&2

What has Ron Paul done as Congressman??

I've been told that Ron Paul hasn't done much as a Congressman. Okay. I didn't argue or defend Ron Paul, instead I went to do research to see if this is true. Here's what I've found:

When Dr. Paul learned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was trying to censor truthful health claims by supplement manufacturers, he introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act (H.R. 2117).
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=53655


Paul Urges Commerce Department to Investigate Foreign Shrimp Subsidies, January 14, 2004
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2004/pr011404.htm


Greenspan: Fed Has Inordinate Power
“I certainly appreciate Mr. Greenspan’s candor,” Paul stated after the hearing. “The Fed does have a tremendous impact on the economy and our lives, but its board members generally escape any political scrutiny for their actions. I want to make the public and Congress more aware of just how powerful--and destructive-- the Fed really is. The unbridled expansion of the money supply will hurt all of us in the long run, in the form of price inflation, destruction of personal savings, and higher interest rates.”, February 12, 2004
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2004/pr021204.htm


"Greenspan Ignores Dangerous Trends: Rising Debt to GDP Ratio is a Warning
Washington, DC: In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan painted a rosy picture of the U.S. economy. His claim that lower interest rates have strengthened the financial condition of American households deserves closer scrutiny, however.
In fact, Economist Frank Shostak of the Ludwig von Mises Institute throws cold water on the Chairman’s assertion: 'According to Greenspan the low interest rate policy of the U.S. central bank has strengthened consumers’ and businesses’ financial conditions. Our analysis, however, disagrees with this…the data demonstrates that the exact opposite took place.'"
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2004/pr021804.htm


"International Trade Commission Agrees: Foreign Subsidies Hurt Local Shrimpers
Washington, Dc: Congressman Ron Paul, along with several of his House colleagues from coastal districts, recently asked the Department of Commerce to investigate questionable foreign shrimp industry practices. He introduced legislation in January designed to help the struggling domestic shrimp industry by reducing burdensome regulations and ending U.S. taxpayer subsidies to foreign shrimpers. Especially troubling to Paul is the amount of foreign aid given to countries that import huge amounts of shrimp into the U.S., including Thailand, India, Vietnam, China, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Brazil.
The independent International Trade Commission (ITC) recently issued a report warning that unfairly subsidized foreign trade threatens the domestic shrimp industry. Congressman Paul is encouraged by this preliminary ITC report, which draws needed attention the troubles facing shrimpers in the Texas Gulf coast and beyond."
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2004/pr022604.htm

"Inflation: Alive and Well
But not only housing prices are on the rise. London economist Sean Corrigan reports that the prices of many other goods and services, including medical care and energy, have also increased substantially. Commodity prices in particular have risen recently. In fact, the Journal of Commerce index for widely traded commodities has risen 49% since last spring! Fed Chairman Greenspan may dismiss commodities as mere “physical” assets in his vision of an increasingly “conceptual” economy, but average Americans should understand how these dramatic increases in commodity prices will affect our pocketbooks:

-gold is around $400, near its 14-year high; platinum is at a 25-year high;
-steel prices are up 160%; aluminum 50%; copper 120%;
-lumber has soared 93% in less than a year;
-coal prices are up 50% over one year ago;
-lead is at a 17-year high; nickel is at a 13-year high;
-beans, corn, rice, and soy have all risen at least 40%.""
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2004/pr030304.htm


If this passage fascinates you and that you'd want to see more of this, check at Press Release:
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml

Mohandas Gandi's True Colors

I just learned a new information about Mohandas Gandhi, who has the icon, Gandhi, in which I had no idea about the truth of his intentions.

Shocking, yet truth set me free:
http://www.gandhism.net/postoffice.php

Declaration of Independent: The Foundations of Free Government, Abuses of King III

Are we going back to the way it was before the United States of America was born?? I was reading the Declaration of Independent and a lot of things in the section, "Abuses of King George III" reminded me of George W. Bush, the history of Slavery, the oppression, the anger among the public, and how the public actually feel like we're at war within our own country. I wonder if you do feel this way when you read this:

"Abuses of King George III

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 meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without and convulsions within.

He has endeavored 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 benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses;

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring 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 complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and 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 endeavored 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."

Source Link:

http://www.nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm?const.html&2

Article VI: The "Supreme Law" and other provisions, #3

"Oath to support the Constitution; no religious test.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both or the United States and of the several states, shall bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religion test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (1)

My concern is that this feels like a loophole advantage for the candidates who are running for the presidency. My reason is that this applies only to people who are Senators, Representatives and president, but not those of who are candidates, who chose to leave their previous office (position). Here's an example, before George W. Bush became a President, he left the office as a Senator to campaign for presidency. Did he use the religion test to qualify himself and the public trust in a way to win votes? Could this be qualify as a loophole? What are your opinions on this?

Link Source:
(1) http://www.nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm?const.html&2

Article II: The Executive Branch : Section 4: Impeachment, #1

How officers may be removed.

The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. (1)

High crimes and misdemeanors: Acts of serious misconduct in public office (such as violating the Constitution or abusing one's political power to harm citizens or get personal gain). (2)

I wonder if this qualifies for current issues on Bush?

Source Link:
(1)http://www.nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm?const.html&2
(2)http://www.nccs.net/freedom_defined/const/const-A2S4-1g.html

Article II: The Executive Branch : Section 1: The President and Vice President, #8

Oath of office.
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I didn't think much of the constitution until recently, when I decided to re-educate ourselves on what it's really about. In this section, it is presently clear that it's the President's duty to protect the people's rights. In order to do this, especially when times are hard, we need to remind ourselves that the constitution is the guide for our humanity. The people who written this constitution were truly putting themselves out of their power and give it to the public. Some even realize that they were hypocrite and even admitted it. Weren't those people being true to themselves? On contrast, Bush has lost his way ever since he uttered these words in a meeting that happened years ago, particularly in November 2004, this was published in December 2004, titled, "The Rant":

"GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

'I don’t give a goddamn,' Bush retorted. 'I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.'

'Mr. President,' one aide in the meeting said. 'There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.'

'Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,' Bush screamed back. 'It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!'

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the 'Constitution is an outdated document.'

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine 'in the end' if something is legal or right."

Source Link:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

What does the word "Socialism" really mean??

Lately, I've been seeing this word, "socialism", being used often as a negative connotations. My question about this such word, why is it a negative if Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Rachel Carson, Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Dalai Lama, Bill Gates, Muhammand Ali or Al Gore are the ones who are the very example of socialism? What does socialism really means? According a few sources, definition and examples of socialism:

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by socialized (state or community) ownership of the means of production." (1)

"The Party formed strong alliances with a number of labor organizations, because of their similar goals. In an attempt to rebel against the abuses of corporations, workers had found a solution–or so they thought–in a technique known as collective bargaining. By banding together into “unions” and refusing to work, or “striking,” workers would halt production at a plant or in a mine, forcing management to meet their demands. From Daniel De Leon’s early proposal to organize unions with a Socialist purpose, the two movements became closely tied. One major ideal they had in common was the spirit of collectivism: both in the Socialist platform and in the idea of collective bargaining." (2)

"Aside from military, the Socialists would meet harsh political opposition as well when exercising their First Amendment right. On April 7, 1917, the day after the United States entered World War I, an emergency convention of the Socialist party was held in St. Louis. They declared the war “a crime against the people of the United States” (Zinn, 1980, p. 355) and began holding anti-war rallies. Socialist anti-draft demonstrations drew as many as 20,000 (Zinn, 1980, p. 356)." (2)

During the decline of Socialism:

“When the twenties began… the IWW was destroyed, the Socialist party falling apart. The strikes were beaten down by force, and the economy was doing just well enough for just enough people to prevent mass rebellion” (Zinn, 1980, p. 373). Thus the decline of the Socialist movement during the early 20th century was the result of a number of constrictions and attacks from several directions:

The Socialists had lost a major ally in the Wobblies, and their free speech had been restricted, if not denied. Immigrants, a major base of the Socialist movement, were discriminated against and looked down upon. Eugene V. Debs—the once charismatic leader of the Socialists—was in prison, along with hundreds of fellow dissenters. Wilson’s National War Labor Board and a number of legislative acts had ameliorated the plight of the workers. Now, the Socialists were regarded as being unnecessary, the “lunatic fringe,” and a group of untrustworthy radicals. The public, the courts, and Congress exhibited prejudice against them. After crippling schisms within the party and a change in public opinion due to the Palmer Raids and the press, the Socialist party found itself unable to gather popular support.

The Party would reach its peak in 1912. At one time, it boasted 33 city mayors and several seats in state legislatures (Tindall et al, 1984, p. 838). When running for President in 1912, Eugene V. Debs won 6% of the popular vote. But, in the past 92 years, the party has not even mustered 4%" (2)

In addition, I wonder what "Left-Wing" really means...here's what I found:

" In politics, left-wing, the political left or simply the left are terms that refer to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of, to varying extents, liberism, socialism, green politics, anarchism, communism, social democracy, progressivsm, American liberalism or social liberalism, and defined in contradistinction to its polar opposite, the Right." (3)

Left-wing issues

"The left has traditionally been concerned with the lower classes and with combating oppression. Thus the industrial revolution saw left-wing politics become associated with the conditions and rights of workers in the new industries. This led to movements around social democracy, socialism and trade unionism. More recently, the left has criticized what it perceives as the exploitative nature of current forms of globalization, e.g. the rise of sweatshops and the "race to the bottom", and either has sought to promote more just forms of globalizations, such as fair trade, or has sought to allow nation-states to "delink" or break free of the global economy."

"As civil and human rights gained more attention during the twentieth century, the left allied itself with advocates of racial and gender equality and cultural tolerance. Most of the left has been opposed to imperialism, colonialism and war, and much of the left has allied itself to movements for national self-determination, especially in the colonial world. The left has also been both challenged and renewed in the later twentieth century through the emergence of the new social movements, such as the nuclear disarmament, feminist and green movements." (3)


Source Links:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
(2) http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Socialism+in+the+USA
(3) http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/leftism

Preamble: Statement of purpose

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Source Link:
http://www.nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm?const.html&2

United States Constitution

Do we remember it?? If not, I ask you to join me to educate ourselves on United States Constitution. What do we know of it?? Which part of constitution do we agree with, and which do we not agree with? Care to discuss this??

Crash Course:
http://www.nccs.net/