Author Archive for SueM

Adventures on the Sunday before a Primary Election

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Here we go …. after months of being consumed by the candidacy of a certain Congressman we want to be president, after months of emails and ad designs and sign waves and lit drops and phone calls and rallies and yes, even moneybombs, here we are on the Sunday before a Primary Election in New Hampshire.

I started off my day with a little project that had been pulled together earlier in the week and which I had decided just the night before to join. A few phone calls, a pick up of tri-folds from a car parked next to a Catholic church in Nashua, and I found myself at a second church in Nashua, tri-folds at the ready, listening to the Mass in French. Resurrecting my long-ago but still surprisingly intact knowledge of that language, I began rehearsing what I would say to people as they left the parking lot after Mass. As it turns out, they all speak English, but it was still nice to practice, and to listen to the spoken word of the beautiful language that is French.

Mass ended and handouts were handed to those who wanted them. Unfortunately some assumed that mine was “just another candidate,” or even mistook my offering for the literature they had just retrieved from their car windshield, placed there on behalf of another candidate. No, this was something quite different, “Catholics for Ron Paul,” with an absolute must-read on the back “Theology, not Politics – Ron Paul, April 2005.”

Then it was on to the 10:30 Mass at another church in Nashua. I arrived in plenty of time to actually attend, which is something I’m not often able to do, so this was a quite wonderful addition to my day. Hand-outs were again handed out after that Mass and then it was back to the New Hampshire Liberty Forum to hear Ron Paul speak at noon. Or was it one pm? In my barely minimal checking of emails that morning, I had noticed a schedule change. No time to confirm it, so just go. This is a common theme in the Campaign, this waiting on where to be and what to do. It takes a certain degree of faith and patience which are always good qualities to have, so that’s another benefit that comes from campaigning for Ron Paul.

This turned out to be the best speech I’ve ever heard the good doctor give, and he did say that we, the audience, were the reason. We were all just so happy to hear the things he was saying being said. Two men later told me, separately, that his speech had brought tears to their eyes. I can see the headline now “Ron Paul Makes Grown Men Cry.” Of course we all know that it isn’t Ron Paul, it’s the message, the one we have held so near and dear and quietly in our hearts for so long, and we just love to hear it being shouted.

Speech ended, hustle and bustle and crowd control ensues. Ron Paul disappears. Roger and I ask each other what to do next. Oh yes, you’ll want to know who Roger is. I had met him the previous night at the Liberty Forum because he was in need of a ride to Providence. Altogether at least three people had stepped forward to get him there – me being one of them – and the decision that it be me had been reached just before Ron Paul’s speech. Again, the nature of our campaign. Wait and see, and the best possible alternative will naturally present itself.

Now we were back in wait-and-see mode. There were rumors flying everywhere at this point. Canvassing packets to be had at Murphy’s Taproom (should we pick some up and canvass for a few hours?) Phone banking in Concord (but a few people had just been sent up there so the phone bank might now be full.) A rally at 5 pm on Commercial Street in Manchester (was this where the infamous Fox Forum was being filmed? or was it where the Ron Paul Town Meeting was being held – his response to being shut out by Fox? Or had the campaign purchased an hour of TV time to have our man’s message run concurrent with the Forum?) And what about the rally of 10,000 at St. Anselm’s in Goffstown? I had been seeing bits pieces about that online for a good week. Was it real, or phantom? Impossible to know. Questions, questions, questions and no answers at this point.

However, since you constantly run into people you know, you almost always have someone to ask. One calls Concord to see if the official campaign has anything planned. No answer. They must be busy up there (duh!) Another says St. Anselm’s it is, but don’t bring signs, they won’t let you bring them on campus. What we need to do is to bring our voices, so that even though we will probably be restricted to a “First Amendment Zone,” perhaps we’ll be able to shout loud enough for the world to hear what we think of the “fair and balanced” Fox News Channel.

But is the Forum still even being held at St. A’s? Someone claims they’ve changed the venue to a bus that is now on the road. I wonder why they would do that. And the time. I had heard 6 pm, now someone was saying 4:30.

Then something brought us back down to earth. We realized that we were hungry. Hmmmm, Murphy’s Taproom definitely has food, and may have canvassing packets … that seems like a good idea. So we left the Crowne Plaza and headed north to Manchester, and as we drove we watched a plane trolling a Ron Paul banner overhead. This was great!

We reached Murphy’s to find a strange scene. There was parking everywhere. It seems there never is parking at Murphy’s when Ron Paul is in town, and sometimes even when he’s not, but there it was, empty spaces to be had. I was pretty thrilled actually, to be able to use real Murphy’s parking for once in my life. This we did, only to find the front door locked, with a closed-for-the-day sign upon it. And inside, Murphy’s didn’t even look like Murphy’s, they were re-fitting it for some private party being held that evening. Okay, well, let’s see if there are canvassing packets. We can always find food somewhere else. We knocked and someone answered. By now three others had shown up. We all stepped inside. Roger went looking for canvassing packets as we four remaining RP supporters chatted. Then Rand Paul showed up. They were looking for lunch too. We overheard the recommendation, a place called PJ’s further up the road.

There were no canvassing packets to be had, so we left for PJ’s. We figured if it’s good enough for Ron Paul, it’s good enough for us. And it was good. Soon after Roger and I had sat down, a waitress came by asking if we had any campaign literature. She said there was a cook out back – a young man of 18 - who was a huge Ron Paul fan and wanted to ask for his autograph, but had nothing for him sign. Campaign literature? You’ve come to the right place. Have him come over and we’ll go to my car and he can take his pick.

The nice advantage to this was that it reminded me that I had finally remembered to bring the something I had been hoping to have autographed, and frankly if the waitress hadn’t come over I probably would have forgotten to even ask for it. This 54-year-old brain of mine is just way too full of stuff and I’m constantly forgetting little details like that.

Next arrived the three we had met at Murphy’s, a young lady and two young fellows. They took the table next to ours and we all had lunch. At some point in the middle the young cook came out and we went to my car, talking a blue streak of course. His mom’s a supporter and so is his roommate. I told him how my generation is thrilled that his generation loves Ron Paul too.

We did a little strategic planning as to how to ask for the autographs – you can’t interrupt someone’s lunch after all – and finally we managed to do so. I told Dr. Paul what I thought of the speech he had just given. He thanked me.

Then the three from Murphy’s approached us. It turned out that two of them had to leave that very minute to catch their flight back to Michigan and the third, a young fellow named Chris, needed a ride – could we take him along?

Hmmm … I pictured my daughter’s Chevy Aveo, which she had traded just that morning for my Kia Amanti in order to move her stuff back to school. I pictured it with Roger’s luggage and my 2 x 4 Ron Paul signs, among others, in the back seat, and my four small bags of stuff. Then I said “sure.” He’s thin, he can fit. So, off the two went to Michigan and we three, Roger, Chris and me, rearranged a few items and squeezed into the Aveo, in search of what’s next.

We now had two choices. Too late to do any good up in Concord, so shall we head for Commercial Street, or St. Anselm’s? Roger had been to the latter just the day before. Not that he knew how to get there, but he did have a pretty good idea of what to expect should we be able to find it. The GPS I don’t own would have come in handy just then, but I had the next best thing – my brother lives a stone’s throw away, and he was home and answered when I called, lost, somewhere on the east side of Manchester.

He got us there where we discovered that you needed a pass to get onto the campus. Now what? Park somewhere and walk? Are the 10,000 even there? It was pretty quiet, so we figured not. I called my contact who had earlier advised me of the Commercial Street thing. She said “come on down, there are people over here.” So, it was back to the west side of Manchester where, after getting lost again, we managed to find a piece of the crowd. Word was that there were more people up at Bridge Street, or at some 1 Plaza place. We wandered around on Commercial Street for twenty minutes or so. The first word had been that something (Town Hall Meeting?) was happening at 540 Commercial and they wanted people outside with signs when Ron Paul left the building. Then someone said it’s at 545 Commercial. Then someone said no, we should go up to Bridge Street, there are tons of people there. And that’s what we did.

It was somewhat of hike up what seemed to be ten stories, to the bridge overhead, then a trudge in the snow up a small hill, to Elm Street where there was, indeed, somewhat of a crowd. It seemed rather small but at least it knew what it was doing, standing there on four corners with signs and chants and many, many people driving by and beeping for Ron Paul, better than the crowd that had been milling around down below debating what to do, but still not quite in the range of 10,000.

Then someone came up and said that it was actually seven blocks south where the ton of people were. This made sense because that’s where the media were hanging out. Should we go, and if so, should we walk or go back for the car? Chris and I decided on the car plan and Roger headed off to the new rallying point. We got there some twenty minutes later, with lots of beeping and shouting Ron Paul out the window as we drove through the packed intersection. Some policemen were just starting to arrive – I guess it had gotten big enough for that. We parked and joined the crowd. There was a little restaurant on the side street we were on, with a separate crowd outside of it. Word was that they were waiting for Sean Hannity to come out, which he did soon after. He and a companion headed for the nearby Radisson Hotel and the crowd followed, shouting epithets at Fox News (relatively nice ones as far as I could hear, it was a very well-behaved crowd). I managed to see Mr. Hannity in profile, confirming that it was indeed him. Not long after this I noticed a crowd plastered against that same restaurant, again yelling Fox News epithets. The unconfirmed report was that the infamous Frank Luntz, “pollster” was inside and the speculation was that a hallowed Fox News Focus Group was being conducted at that very place. And so virtual reality meets the real world as those who spin are confronted by those who just want to know the truth.

There came a time when we decided it was time to leave, to drop Chris off not far away, in Manchester, and set off Providence-way. Just then we met Steve from New York, and struck up a conversation that could have continued all night, frankly, because it was that interesting. Steve’s truck was parked back down on Commercial Street, so of course the question “would you like a ride” came up and he said yes. I drove him down, we talked for another 15 minutes, and then I pulled myself away, thinking of Chris and Roger waiting back up on Elm. I got a little bit lost trying to get back to them. I really don’t know how I ended up on the outskirts of Bedford when they were something like five blocks away, but anyway, no harm done. I turned around and found my way back, arriving some twenty minutes later. They didn’t seem to mind the wait at all. There was still plenty going on. We dropped Chris off at a house full of Ron Paul supporters crashing for the night and then finally Roger and I headed south.

Roger thanked me at least five times for taking him to Providence that night. And I said, at least five times, no problem at all. In fact, the value of the conversations we had during our nearly two-hour trip far outweighed the extra time I had taken to get him there. This was in part due to the fact that Roger practices law and I have a very keen interest in that, mainly in what the law actually says versus what people assume it says. The question that keeps coming to my mind is how and why did our law, so simple and true at the founding, get to be so cumbersome and confusing?

Now, about this revolution we are having, I have a friend who will forever say that it takes just ten people to turn a town around. Just ten to send state government packing, out of the town schools (if the townspeople choose to have schools), out of its finances, out of everything that makes up the life of the town, and its Liberty. Ten people to put that state government back under the guidelines by which it was created in the first place. Ten people to remind everyone that their town is not a vassal of the state it created, but rather a Sovereign, an extended family not unlike the one forming today via the Ron Paul Revolution, incorporated for the protection of all who live there.

And so, as this family we call the Ron Paul R3VOLution grows, I wonder, where will this lead? Will it be ten Ron Paul supporters town-by-town, until we get them all back? Or will it be some other mechanism, still unclear, something new and of these times in which we live? Time will tell and I wonder what my children and my children’s children will inherit.

I know that those who came before us wondered this too as I turn to the Preamble of my state constitution to read this:

We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Sphere: Related Content

What’s Wrong with Our Money?

What’s wrong with our money? Well, for one thing it makes us exchange something of value — e.g. a house to live in, a book to read, gasoline to get you somewhere — for something that has no intrinsic value, in our case, paper.

What paper money does to a society over time is well documented. The 1912 classic FIAT MONEY INFLATION IN FRANCE How It Came, What It Brought, and How It Ended by Andrew Dickson White, LL.D., Ph.D., D.C.L., tells the story well. Here is an excerpt from his Introduction as published in Project Gutenberg’s EBook:

In 1876, during the “greenback craze,” General Garfield and Mr. S. B. Crittenden, both members of the House of Representatives at that time, asked me to read a paper on the same general subject before an audience of Senators and Representatives of both parties in Washington. This I did, and also gave it later before an assemblage of men of business at the Union League Club in New York.

Various editions of the paper were afterward published, among them, two or three for campaign purposes, in the hope that they might be of use in showing to what folly, cruelty, wrong and rain the passion for “fiat money” may lead.

It can be hard to be aware of what paper money is doing to your world when you are focused on just doing your best to get by, even though just getting by is getting harder every year. Life seems normal, so you don’t complain.

Then someone comes along and says “hey, things could be better.” One such person is Ron Paul. From The Case for Gold which he co-authored with Lewis Lehrmann:

Having a unit of account that has no definition or one that changes continually produces a situation equivalent to a carpenter using a yardstick that on an hourly basis changes the number of inches it contains. It is easy to see how foolish it would be to have any other unit of measurement changing in definition on a constant basis, yet many believe that a whole nation’s economy can operate with a monetary system in which the “dollar” has no definition and its measurement and value depend on politicians and bureaucrats. (page 158)

For an excellent review of the gold standard as a political issue in American history please read Howard Katz’ Report from New Hampshire of November 30, 2007, in which he points out that whenever this issue is fought out in the open the gold standard wins. By bringing it out in the open Ron Paul has started the ball rolling back to sound money.

The damage caused by paper money escalates in exponential fashion. It is only a matter of time before the house of cards collapses. However, just as paper money has damned mankind throughout history, so has gold always redeemed these most dire of situations. And so, quoting from the Constitution of my Commonwealth, Massachusetts, I look forward to a future when the “principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people” will be simply a matter of course.

Sphere: Related Content

On the Eve of this 5th of November

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot…

And so begins the famous poem about Guy Fawkes and his failure to blow up Parliament. Guy Fawkes is considered by some to have been an anarchist, and concern has been raised over associating the 5th of November with a dynamite (no pun intended) fund raising effort some Ron Paul supporters have undertaken called “this November 5th,” where one is directed to donate to the official Ron Paul Campaign tomorrow.

Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot are prominently featured in “V for Vendetta” and anyone familiar with this story knows that one of its main themes is that of the corruption of power. In the movie version the forces of V don’t seem to have a follow up plan (i.e. a new form of government), but we Ron Paul supporters in fact do (well, it was new some 200 years ago). As a Congressman, Ron Paul has been upholding the Constitution for twenty years, so you cannot call him an anarchist. In fact, one could argue that any officer of any of our governments, federal or state, who does not follow the Constitution that created his or her office is an anarchist of sorts.

Someone recently suggested the 11th of November - Veteran’s Day - as another good fund raising day. And so the beginnings of another poem come to mind…

Remember remember the Eleventh of November,
The Constitutional Government Plot,
I know of no reason
This Country We Believe In
Should ever be forgot…

Sphere: Related Content

One Reason Ron Paul is Perfect

I’m sitting here working, listening to the Diane Rehm Show, and someone has just made the point that President Bush’s newest war funding request will be passed by the majority Democrat Congress because Congress is tired and waiting for this Presidency to end and I got to thinking about the next President; I thought of Ron Paul and how perfect he will be.

Because Ron Paul will say “no” to both sides. He will say “no” to the Republicans who would rule the world and he will say “no” to the Democrats who would rule our lives.

Perfect! A lot of money staying with the People who will save it up to fund their future enterprises and those enterprises will make our economy very happy and over time those of us who have come to depend on government largesse will land on our feet and charity which has never disappeared from the American scene will become even more abundant (now that the government isn’t taking so much of our lives) and we will be secure in our borders and being secure we will trade goods and exchange knowledge and good will with other nations and I think I have to change my title now because I’ve thought of more than one reason Ron Paul is perfect and I bet you can think of even more.

Sphere: Related Content

Unspinning Fox News

Here we go again. I’m sure there are tons of discussions going on across the Internet about last night’s Fox News broadcast of the Republican Debate in Orlando. Here’s my own little observation of the shenanigans of the post-debate special edition of “Hannity and Colmes.” My comments are in italics.

First, the lead-in, as best I could transcribe it:

Alan Colmes: Welcome back to this special edition of Hannity and Colmes and we are coming to you live tonight from the spin room at the GOP Presidential Debate in Orlando Florida and now it is time to reveal the results from our text messaging poll…as of now in first place Ron Paul 39%…

Sean Hannity: (talking over Colmes): and by the ah…they’re stacking the deck

Alan Colmes: (continuing in spite of Hannity’s interruption): …Mike Huckabee getting 19%…

Sean Hannity: can I say something

Alan Colmes: and ah you want…

Sean Hannity: yea, they’re stacking the deck…that’s the way they have at every campaign…he did not win this debate, period, end of sentence.

Alan Colmes: all right, well let’s, I’m just telling you what the results say…

Sean Hannity: (talking over Colmes): well, that’s my opinion

Alan Colmes: …we don’t have any further information other than what the results say. Third spot, Rudy Guiliani getting 12% of the vote…

This is all quite predictable, but soon it gets interesting as they move to the “room next door.”

Alan Colmes: …and we check back in with Frank Luntz who is in the…ah… right next to the spin room here he’s been following a focus group throughout the evening and some rather interesting results from the people who he has been trailing throughout the proceedings here tonight. Frank…

Frank Luntz “pollster”: Yes we’re here at the University of Central Florida and I have to show you something…How many of you thought Ron Paul won the debate?

Camera pans across the room of approximately twenty people, none of whose hands go up.

(why I am not surprised?)

Frank Luntz: No hands going up.

I do, however, count four smiles as he says this - silly me to think that the text messaging poll meant something - these are real people they are polling here and why would there be even one Ron Paul supporter in a room of twenty? Or maybe there is one, just one, and he or she doesn’t think Ron Paul won the debate. Despite such rational thinking on my part I remain perplexed by the 39 to zero percent spread.

Frank Luntz continues: I think that says an awful lot about that text polling. But I didn’t really ask the right question earlier. Since the focus of the debate was Hillary Clinton, how many of you, based on what you saw, think that Rudy Guiliani is the best Republican specifically to defeat Hillary Clinton? How many of you believe that?

A majority of hands go up.

Frank Luntz: look at these hands going up (he seems pleased) and a lot of these people don’t necessarily support Hillar ah Rudy Guiliani (Freudian slip alert: does this mean Hil and Rudy are interchangeable?) but Bob why’s he the one to defeat Hillary Clinton?

Bob: He stood up, he can withstand the Clinton Machine, and in kind.

Frank Luntz: Greg, why Rudy?

Greg: I think he’s demonstrated very good leadership over the years he probably managed a budget that’s larger than many small country’s so I think he’s got the experience.

Frank Luntz, turning to another participant: Do you also think it’s Rudy, or not?

Man in blue tie: No, I do not.

Frank Luntz: Who’d you pick?

Man with blue tie: I thought Huckabee came on strong tonight. I’m a Thompson fan but I thought Huckabee’s momentum’s going forward and I think he’s…ah…he’s gonna come up…

Frank Luntz (interrupting): and you’re nodding your head also…

Man in black shirt: if you woulda told me that I was gonna come in here tonight and think that Huckabee would win this debate I would have said that you are a liar (Freudian slip alert: he would call Frank Luntz “pollster” a liar? Why not just “I would have said you were wrong?”) but I too, along with him, I as a Thompson fan Huckabee won me over tonight.

Frank Luntz: you’re nodding your head also

Man with glasses: Clinton was an unknown governor when he won the presidency. Huckabee is that type man. He came in today strong. He came in as a man with ideas…if they give him time he’s one of those candidates who’s out there who they ask him one question and ask Rudy three…they need to give that man some time.

Man in black shirt: Bill Clinton came in as a sleeper like Huckabee and we have the Arkansas factor as well playing into effect.

Wait…I thought the subject here was who won the debate..this is getting way too analytical for me. In fact it’s sounding more like a campaign strategy meeting for a Rudy-Huckabee ticket than an objective opinion poll.

Frank Luntz: you know it’s interesting that there’s always some sleeper…there’s a surprise in this…this is the second time in these debates that we’ve done that Mike Huckabee has been the surprise. Looks like he had a good night also.

So, Huckabee (2nd in the txt msg poll) and Rudy (3rd) both had great nights…but Ron Paul who just happened to be way ahead in first place in that poll did not, not in a room full of “real” people anyway.

P.S. For an analysis of who is actually in a position to beat Hillary click here. Hint: it’s the fellow who came in first in the text messaging poll.

P.P.S. and for some comic relief check out this short video: “Faux News Debate: Hitler vs Mother Theresa” … hilarious!

Sphere: Related Content

Silent No More: How Ron Paul’s Adherence to the Constitution Will Return Government to the People

I recently had a conversation with a good friend on the subject of agendas. Call it the “Moral Majority” or the “Christian Right,” whatever you call it, there is a political force in our nation that hesitates to support Ron Paul because there are several moral questions it would like to see settled at the federal level and Ron Paul won’t go there.

We were discussing the so-called “gay” marriage issue and I said “but what if they lose?” Silence. “Oh, you’re right,” my friend finally responded …. this is making sense now.“ That’s the point the Christian Right seems to be missing. It wants desperately to take the issues of abortion and gay marriage to the federal level for a constitutional amendment, where in fact it might lose.

If there is deciding to be done, why not at the state level? Instead of the proverbial eggs all in one basket, you put them in fifty, and while some of them may go contrary to Faith and Tradition, not all of them will, whereas at the federal level it becomes an all-or-nothing proposition with a resulting lock-step sameness across the land. Plus, with the fifty baskets idea you can simply move to a state that agrees with you if and when it comes to that.

And what’s with these marriage licenses anyway? Oh … they’re to show that one is married. Okay. I go to a church and get married. I have a record of this. Now, when someone asks me if I’m married, I show them the certificate.

Well, suppose I am gay and it is after the fifty battles have been fought and I live in one of the states that have come to recognize my desire to live as man and man or wife and wife (sorry, I don’t really know how to put that). In this case I simply go to the government to get the record I need because it is through the institution of government that this arrangement has been instituted. In other words, isn’t the problem that we have taken marriage out of the hands of one institution (the Church) and put it into the hands of another (the Government)? Why not simply put it back where it was in the beginning and let the people of each state decide on the “gay marriage” issue?

Ditto for abortion. Right now this has law-of-the-land status on the majority opinion of nine. The Christian Right would have it decided on the majority opinion of fifty. Ron Paul would simply uphold the Tenth Amendment which would have it uniquely decided by majorities in each and every state, either by Legislative Body or Referendum.

It seems that our Republic is quite democratic after all. You just have to do what the Constitution says, which is what Ron Paul has been saying for how many years?

Sphere: Related Content

Congress, Just War and a Young Man’s Choice

I have a friend whose son is grappling with the issue of our involvement in Iraq. In his late teens, he knows kids who have either signed up or are thinking about it and right now he supports the war. My friend recently wondered out loud what to say to her son in hopes of broadening his view. With the somewhat obsessive and very fruitful habit I’ve developed over the last several months, I volunteered to look into it. Here’s what I found:

First, a quote from from a speech given by the Hon. Ron Paul of Texas before the U.S. House of Representatives, September 7, 2006 entitled “Big Government Solutions Don’t Work/ The Law of Opposites”

With no consistent moral defense of true liberty, the continued erosion of personal and property rights is inevitable. This careless disregard for liberty, our traditions, and the Constitution have brought us disaster, with a foreign policy of military interventionism supported by the leadership of both parties. Hopefully, some day this will be radically changed.

Unfortunately it seems to be no longer common knowledge that “a foreign policy of military interventionism” is not allowed under the US Constitution. Of the young man or woman volunteering to serve in the US Armed Forces today, I would ask:

Going to war is serious business. Are you willing to do so for a war that has not been authorized by the People through their Representatives in Congress, whose members have taken a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution?

Ron Paul often frames the argument in terms of the just war theory. In his article Onward Christian Soldiers? Christian Perspectives on War, Timothy J. Demy, Th.D. Commander, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy lists seven principles or criteria for just war, five for the nation “on the way to war” (jus ad bellum):

Just cause
Just intention
Last resort
Formal declaration
Limited objectives

and two for the military forces “in the midst of war” (jus in bello):

Proportionate means
Noncombatant immunity

Commander Demy then continues:

The just war theory has three important functions. First, it seeks to limit the devastation and outbreak of war. Second, the just war theory offers a common moral framework and language with which to discuss issues of war in the public arena. As Christians and as citizens it gives us a starting point for discussion and cultural engagement. Third, just war theory gives moral guidance to individuals in developing their conscience, responsibilities, and response. When the war drums sound, they are often loud and there is frequently confusion, competition, and chaos rather than clear thinking about the moral and biblical consequences of what is occurring. Just war theory is a tool for responsible Christian living and citizenship

It is reasonable to suppose that when when our founders decided Congress shall have the Power to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States, and with this the Power to declare War (Art I Sec 8), they had in mind the just war tradition developed over hundreds of years under the influence of not only Christianity but Roman law and Greek philosophy as well.

In these times we have plenty of destructive means at hand with which to wage war. Now more than ever we need the moral compass that limits their use, made plain by the just war tradition handed down through the ages for the good of all mankind.

Sphere: Related Content

Gresham’s Law and the War on Drugs

I just finished watching passions run high in three YouTube clips from 1988. Libertarian Presidential candidate Ron Paul and two others were on the Mort Downey Jr. Show and when I say passions ran high, I do mean high, very high. The subject was the War on Drugs, with Ron Paul et al for legalization and almost everyone else, including the host, for keeping illegal drugs illegal.

This happens to be a topic I’ve been trying to get a handle on of late. Maybe I’ve just gotten used to the idea of certain drugs being illegal, maybe I’ve fallen for the propaganda I know is out there, but anyway it is something I haven’t really been able to form an opinion on.

However, I do have an opinion on another fairly hot-button issue and that is the war on Honest Money. So I would like to try to form an opinion on the drug issue by considering the template that defines the money issue.

One very important rule that explains the money thing is Gresham’s Law: Bad money drives out good.

Or, as refined by Dr. Gary North, “…bad money drives out the good money only when the government says the two are equal in value, and enforces this decision with the threat of punishment.” (“Honest Money,” Christian Liberty Press, p. 53)

In other words, the currency artificially overvalued by a government will be spent (circulated) while the artificially undervalued currency will be hoarded (not circulated).

Can this principle be applied to drugs? Bad behavior drives out good.

Or taken a step further, punishing bad behavior drives out good behavior. Making drugs illegal instantly classifies a whole bunch of behaviors as “bad” and this drives out the good behavior that should be a reward in and of itself but no longer is. Now that bad has been defined as using drugs, good comes to mean not using drugs while real goodness continues unnoticed, sort of like honest money being hoarded.

So it seems to me that Gresham’s law does apply here and in dealing with the problem of drug addiction we’ve traded civility, compassion, individual responsibility and self-restraint for crime and punishment. The good has been driven out by the bad. And just as the badness of bad money only gets worse, so too will the badness of bad behavior when it comes to drugs only get worse over time.

On a positive note, just as sound money will mend the economy so will good behavior mend the soul. This process will naturally reassert itself once we effectively tell our governments to stop meddling in our affairs, be they economic transactions or helping one another through the rough spots in life.

Author’s note: For the reader’s interest, a comment on this article, which originally appeared at “TheLawOfIdentity.org Reason, constitutional government, sound money” on September 2nd, 2007, provides a link to a debate on the Gold Standard between Congressman Ron Paul and Charles Partee, member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The debate was part of the Capitol Hill Gold Conference, held in Washington DC in November 1983 and hosted by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Sphere: Related Content

Government-Confiscated Education

Corie made a very important point in her recent article It’s History, Not Legend when she noted that “James Madison, and all of the great individuals who aided in the founding of America were educated.” It seems the topic of education reform is forever on the table.

Ron Paul advocates a step in the right direction by promising to shut down the Federal Department of Education. It wasn’t all that many years ago that we had the understanding that education is a local matter. Even then, however, education was not in reality local because so-called compulsory attendance laws had started showing up in the middle of the 19th century, making education a state matter. That was the beginning of the end we now suffer and so Ron Paul’s step is really only a first step.

That said, I would like to share the following letter I wrote to the editor which originally appeared in the MetroWest Daily News (Framingham, MA) on Sunday, January 7, 2007:

Government-Confiscated Education

With reference to “Raising the bar, raising confusion, with MCAS” (Gary Dzen, MetroWest Daily News, December 25, 2006), you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. You can make a child go to school, but you can’t make him learn.

Enter the MCAS.

Designed to “raise the bar” by making children learn, it is actually revealing the folly of government-instituted education systems. It is not surprising that these are prohibited by law.

It is a requirement of our law that our Legislatures and Magistrates encourage the interests of Literature and the Sciences. The officers of our government cannot compel interest but can only encourage it by encouraging the interests that naturally arise as a result of our corporate lives. Yet since 1853 children have been compelled to learn what someone in an increasingly distant office thinks they should learn, not what their parents think they should learn, or what they themselves are interested in, but what a stranger thinks is good for them.

Enter the MCAS.

Children and those who care for them are no longer people. The system got rid of parents in the mid-1800’s and now it is getting rid of the teachers. Here is what this is about: Government confiscates education and the money it needs to build a system “for the people.” Putting aside that we never authorized government to define education, when it can’t deliver on the promises made it proceeds to confiscate even more funds to save the sinking ship.

Why not take children out? There are practical reasons of course, but also this: believing there is a law that requires you to send your children to school, you think that if you don’t send them you will have to submit to government authority on the matter. Better to send them than to have to realize that you are not free to educate your own children. It may be of interest to some that there have been at least two cases in the Commonwealth in recent years where parents who questioned the authority of government agents over the education of their children have won in court.

Our towns (that’s us) have failed to resist government intrusion into our affairs. What was repugnant to our law in 1853 is still repugnant today.

Enter the MCAS, tip of the iceberg.

Sphere: Related Content

Fox News Exposes Itself … Again

Exhibit A:

Alan Colmes is announcing results of the Text Message “U-Vote” for the first time and Ron Paul is first with 35%.

Sean Hannity says:

Oh, here we go again … ah, here we go again, it’s driving me crazy

Later in the broadcast:

Alan Colmes:

And before we get to our next guest, let’s take a look at the results so far for tonight’s ‘U-Vote.’ In first place with 33% … Ron Paul … the Paulites I guess busy dialing and re-dialing on the phone.

Sean Hannity (interrupting):

Wait wait wait wait … you know what, they’re re-dialing by the second …

Exhibit B:

Political pollster Frank Luntz is analyzing the graph of viewer response during the “Paul - Huckabee” exchange on Iraq. As it turns out, the exchange was cut short.

Viewer response increases with these last words of Mike Huckabee’s:

Even if we lose elections we should not lose our honor and this is more important than the Republican Party.

to which Pollster Luntz gives his final comment:

Not losing our honor … clearly principle won out in this exchange.

(end of segment)

All well and good had the complete exchange actually been reported, with these, Ron Paul’s final words:

We’ve lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan, in Iraq plus thecivilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? What do we have to pay to save face? That’s all we’re doing is saving face. It’s time we came home.

We’ll never know what viewer response to the true ending of this exchange showed on the graph. I can say that the applause to the two statements seemed to be quite even. Given this I think it is safe to imagine Pollster Luntz’ actual final words, the ones not broadcast by Fox News:

It’s time we came home … clearly principle won out in this exchange.

Further Reading:

Hannity Lies To Discredit Ron Paul After Debate

Sphere: Related Content




Close
E-mail It