Rep. Thomas ‘Tip’ O’Neill once said, “all politics is local.” Rep. O’Neill was stating that local problems and concerns affect the actions of representatives and senators in Washington. That is, on election day, local politics becomes as important, if not more so to individuals day-to-day lives, than national politics and that national politics is a reflection of local politics. Further, local politics does not depend on huge campaign budgets. Rather, local politics is actually more reflective of democracy in action than national politics.

Thus when Shaun Booth bemoans (in the article below) the fact that Ron Paul continues to work within the Republican party, I am more inclined to offer Shaun a tissue than write Ron Paul asking him to cut off his nose to spite his face. If only more individuals were like Ron Paul in all parties, then we could really effect change. Yes, we need those who are willing to go forth on the national stage with the message of liberty (smaller government, more personal responsibility and freedom, and adhere to the Constitution). But it starts at the local level.

Those of you who are involved in the Ron Paul Revolution must continue to be active, not only on the national level, but the local level. Become a candidate yourself or support those of like mind who are willing to take the time, spend the money (often their own), and make the effort to effect change at the town, county, and state levels. Convince the voters in your area to stop voting straight party ticket. For any party! Vote for the individual, not the party. Blindly voting party is how we got ourselves into the morass we now find ourselves. And it starts locally!

Here is the article by Shaun Booth in politicallore.com dated 05/12/2008 entitled “Ron Paul Continues to Cling to the Republican Party“:

The Ron Paul movement has accomplished far more than any individual thought possible just a year ago, the time has come for Paul to ask himself if he is still on the right path. The economic situation in this country has descended into a seemingly uncontrollable tailspin, with the dollar at all-time lows and oil at all-time highs; conditions are ripe for a complete economic meltdown. And just at this country’s worst moment, a moment that is redefined with the rise of each day’s sun, there is a strong and determined coalition of people hell bent on change and victory over the establishment, namely Ron Paul’s supporters. Unfortunately that coalition and their movement have gone relatively dormant compared to their peak just several months ago.

When Ron Paul appears in public he constantly warns the American people that the economic situation in this country is extremely serious and the clock is ticking for the U.S. to return to a sound monetary policy. Yet he is unwilling to run outside of a party that has been largely successful in laughing him off the stage. I know Ron Paul is a principled man and I know that he believes he is on the morally superior side in a battle to win back the Republican Party, but ultimately he is engaging in a losing battle. The Republican Party in the United States is a cavernous tomb filled with apathetic votes which are a product of our increasingly apolitical society. Does Ron Paul want to make his statement in the battle for a tomb? Or does he want to rejuvenate his grassroots supporters to spread the universal message of freedom and to build a brand new coalition in American politics. The landscape in American politics is ripe for Ron Paul’s message, particularly in this coming election with the Republican candidate John McCain largely alienating the right of the Republican Party. This is the year to sow the seeds of a new coalition. I would rather see a step away from the Republican Party by Paul supporters than the humiliating step towards a long term battle inside of the Republican Party.

The Ron Paul campaign has made small strides forward in collecting delegates in the Republican Nomination race; however, these delegates are being collected despite the American people voicing their overwhelming support for McCain, Romney and Huckabee in the Republican primaries around the country, with Ron Paul collecting less than 10% of the popular vote nationwide. So any revolt at the Republican National Convention staged by Ron Paul supporters will be against the voters as much as it would be against McCain or the establishment.

In a recent development Ron Paul’s fellow Republican Congressman Bob Barr announced today that he will seek the Libertarian nomination for the Presidential race. It will be interesting to watch how Barr’s candidacy will develop and if ultimately if he will receive the support of Ron Paul supporters in the general election. Unfortunately Barr does not have Paul’s squeaky clean record, because of votes such as a yes vote for the Patriot Act.

Whether it is eventually Ron Paul or Bob Barr or even Jesse Ventura it will be important to set aside differences and work to build a formidable opponent to McCain and Obama in November. Without this coalition the American people are promised more U.S. military intervention around the globe, the devaluation of our currency in the U.S. and the overall continuation of the military, pharmaceutical and prison industrial complexes that promise to bring this country to its knees not in decades but in years.

To Red Pills home page.
Thank you Donna Coe for bringing this article to my attention. This article, excluding the material cited or the material which is included herein but written by other authors or material covered by other copyrights, is copyright © 2008, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved.
Gary Shumway is the author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.

As government grows, the liberty of the people diminishes.

From au.biz.yahoo.com dated 05/13/2008 entitled “US has April surplus but budget strained“:

The US government posted a $US159.3 billion ($A169.52 billion) surplus in April, helped by the mid-month deadline for individuals meeting 2007 tax obligations, but it was down from the prior year’s surplus, the Treasury Department reported on Monday.

In April 2007, the surplus was $US177.7 billion ($A189.1 billion).

In the first seven months of fiscal 2008, which ends on September 30, the government’s budget deficit swelled by 88.4 per cent to $US152.2 billion ($A161.97 billion), from $US80.8 billion ($A85.98 billion) in the first seven months of fiscal 2007.

The latest figures point to growing strain on the budget, which is poised to face a deeper deficit as payments under an economic stimulus program agreed by Congress and the Bush administration get into full swing.

The Congressional Budget Office forecast in March that the fiscal 2008 deficit likely will hit $US396 billion ($A421.41 billion). Defence spending keeps climbing as the administration seeks more funds for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the first seven months of fiscal 2008, Defence Department spending rose by about $US34 billion ($A36.18 billion) from the comparable period in fiscal 2007 to $US341.1 billion ($A362.99 billion).

In April alone, receipts primarily from taxes totalled a record $US403.8 billion ($A429.71 billion), up from $US383.6 billion ($A408.22 billion) in April 2007.

But outlays also set a record at $US244.5 billion ($A260.19 billion), compared with $US205.9 billion ($A219.11 billion) in April last year. Outlays are due to swell in coming months as tax rebates of up to $US600 ($A638.50) for individuals and $US1,200 ($A1,277) for married couples that are part of the administration’s economic stimulus plan start flowing in earnest.

The program, intended to give the flagging economy a boost, got started at the end of April and the Treasury Department said that $US3.4 billion ($A3.62 billion) had been issued. The stimulus package is suppose to pump about $US152 billion ($A161.75 billion) into consumers’ hands to try to keep the consumption-driven economy from stalling.

To Red Pills home page.
The image used in this post was obtained from HERE and is basically unaltered. This article, excluding the material cited or the material which is included herein but written by other authors or material covered by other copyrights, is copyright © 2008, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved.
Gary Shumway is the author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.

Earlier today I posted regarding Chuck Baldwin’s, a Christian Minister, entry into the U.S. Presidential foray as the Constitution Party candidate. I also posted regarding many Jews seemingly aligning themselves with despotic forces. So when I came across an article regarding Albert Einstein’s statement that belief in God was a “childish superstition” I thought I would share it. If anything, this shows how little we actually KNOW concerning post-mortality and that humans of good will can honestly disagree regarding God and post-mortality.

Here then is the article from breitbart.com dated 05/13/2008 entitled “Belief in God ‘childish,’ Jews not chosen people: Einstein letter“:

Albert Einstein described belief in God as “childish superstition” and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.
The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.

As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they “have no different quality for me than all other people”.

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

“No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this,” he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.

The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house’s managing director Rupert Powell.

In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel’s second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God’s chosen people.

“For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions,” he said.

“And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people.”

And he added: “As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”

Previously the great scientist’s comments on religion — such as “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” — have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith.

Powell said the letter being sold this week gave a clear reflection of Einstein’s real thoughts on the subject. “He’s fairly unequivocal as to what he’s saying. There’s no beating about the bush,” he told AFP.

To Red Pills home page.
The image used in this post was obtained from HERE and is basically unaltered. This article, excluding the material cited or the material which is included herein but written by other authors or material covered by other copyrights, is copyright © 2008, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved.
Gary Shumway is the author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.

A previously posted in Red Pills, Chuck Baldwin was recently voted the Constitution Party presidential candidate and for the most part, I like what Chuck says. He is a bit too much into religion for my taste but after all, he is a preacher, so it is to be expected. Given the choices of Obama, Chelsea’s Momma, or We Gotta Go Bombma, I would vote for Chuck any day of the week, including Sunday.

Also in Red Pills, I have posted why I am so opposed to McCain. He is just bad news for America. God help the Republican party, for they know what they do.

Here is Chuck’s column for 05/13/2008 from NewsWithViews.com entitled “BIRDS OF A FEATHER“:

There is an old adage that, for the most part, has proven itself to be true: “Birds of a feather flock together.” In other words, one can discern much about a person by the company he or she keeps. Accordingly, here is a sample of the quirky company of Senator John McCain.

As Jerome Corsi recently reported, John McCain has long enjoyed sizeable funding from the ultraliberal gazillionaire George Soros, and from liberal Massachusetts Senator John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. (See the report here)

Question: Why would ultraliberals such as Soros and Kerry give so much money to a “conservative” Republican? Answer: They know that McCain is anything but a conservative. In fact, McCain is so liberal, he actually discussed becoming John Kerry’s Vice Presidential running mate on the Democratic ticket in 2004.

Dr. Corsi also reported the fact that McCain has chosen Juan Hernandez as his Hispanic outreach director. A former Mexican government official, Hernandez is a man who openly advances a “Mexico first” policy everywhere he goes.

Corsi wrote, “In an appearance on ABC’s Nightline in 2001, Hernandez said, referring to Mexican immigrants in the U.S., ‘I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think “Mexico first.”"‘ Neither John McCain nor any of his spokesmen have repudiated Hernandez’ sentiments.

(See Dr. Corsi’s report here)

Is it any surprise, therefore, that John McCain has agreed to speak at the upcoming annual conference of La Raza (”The Race”)? As most readers probably know, behind La Raza is a radical Hispanic group that advocates a militant “reconquista” of the Southwestern United States.

John McCain is also known to have surrounded himself with corporate lobbyists, who, for all intents and purposes, seek only the success of their international corporation employers, not any “conservative” principle.

Noted columnist Cliff Kincaid recently wrote, “Not all conservatives thought the [New York] Times was off-base in going after McCain’s ties to lobbyists. These activists are angry that McCain is surrounded by lobbyists who put corporate interests ahead of conservative interests. They note, for example, that it has been impossible to get McCain to firmly commit to opposing the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty. McCain has also indicated support for the International Criminal Court.”

See Kincaid’s column here

In addition, World Net Daily recently reported that McCain’s family fortune (via his current wife) is tainted with connections to organized crime. The WND report begins by saying, “John McCain’s personal fortune traces back to organized crime in Arizona, through his father-in-law, according to a report published by a multi-news agency team called Investigative Reporters and Editors Inc.”

See the WND report here

In addition, a pro-abortion group has endorsed the now self-touted “pro-life” candidacy of John McCain. “The Republicans for Choice Political Action Committee decided that McCain was the best candidate to make the Republican Party pro-choice following Rudy Giuliani’s withdrawal from the race, reported CNS News today.”

See the report here

And if all of the above is not enough, “Two of Sen. John McCain’s top advisors and fundraisers are among several Republican and Democratic presidential campaign officials whose lobbying firms have been paid more than $15 million by foreign governments since 2005.

“The firms of McCain senior advisor Charlie Black, who until recently was the chairman of Washington-based BKSH & Associates, and campaign co-chairman Thomas G. Loeffler, who heads the Loeffler Group in San Antonio, received millions of dollars lobbying the White House, Congress and others as agents of nearly a dozen foreign clients in recent years . . .” As it turns out, Red China and Mexico are the top employers. (Source: The Washington Times. See the report here)

If it is true that “a man is known by the company he keeps,” what does this say about Senator John McCain?

And for readers who would like to contribute to my 2008 Presidential campaign, I will mention this once, that a special Memorial Day “Money Bomb” has been created here.

Plus, I do not hesitate to state that the only national party that is 100% pro-life, that is committed to securing our borders against illegal immigration, and that is dedicated to preserving our nation’s sovereignty and independence by opposing NAFTA, CAFTA, and the burgeoning North American Union is the Constitution Party. Here is the web site.

© 2008 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

To Red Pills home page.
This article, excluding the material cited or the material which is included herein but written by other authors or material covered by other copyrights, is copyright © 2008, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved.
Gary Shumway is the author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.

Have you ever wondered, “Why do Jews, in general, align themselves with the political groups they do?” I know I have. I thought it was because they saw a powerful state system (read Socialist, or worst) as being the mechanism by which they could protect themselves. Like herring they school for protection. Which diabolically enough, is often the system which oppresses them. Go figure.

Well, I read the recent piece by Burt Prelutsky and it gave a different slant on the issue. I am not sure it makes sense, but here is his article from townhall.com dated 5/12/2008 entitled “Why Jews Vote the Way They Do“.

If I am asked one question by my readers far more frequently than any other, it’s why do so many American Jews insist on aligning themselves with the far left. Believe me, being Jewish myself, it’s the question I most frequently ask myself.

It’s certainly not because Jews are stupid, evil, unpatriotic or dependent on government handouts for their survival, four reasons that certainly explain why millions of my fellow Americans will eagerly line up to vote for any political crackpot so long as he or she is running as a Democrat.

Having given it a great deal of thought, I believe the explanation is to be found in the way we tend to be raised. It’s not so strange if you think about it. After all, most people are Catholics or Protestants, Mormons or Muslims, because that was the religion practiced in their homes. Well, for most Jews, liberal politics played an essential role in their upbringing. It’s why a much higher percentage of us vote for Democrats than attend synagogue regularly or keep kosher.

Furthermore, we are raised to think of ourselves as victims or at least potential victims. Considering the fact that we are often among the best-educated and most successful members of American society, it must seem odd to non-Jews to even imagine such a thing. What is easily overlooked, however, is that when a group of people have been oppressed for thousands of years, the sense of impending doom almost becomes a part of their DNA. No matter how well things are going today, tomorrow you and your friends and all of your relatives could be on your way out. And the only question is whether it’s merely out of the country or into the ovens.

As a result, Jews have an inclination to identify — some might say over-identify — with those they see as fellow underdogs. In America, those people would more often than not be blacks, Hispanics and even criminals, which helps explain the large Jewish presence and financial stake in the ACLU. The pathetic irony is that those are three groups that are among the most virulently anti-Semitic in America. But it also explains why a great many Jews — particularly those who are young, secular and on college campuses — are such vocal partisans of the Palestinians.

At times, it seems as if we exist in some surrealistic universe in which, with the notable exception of Jimmy Carter, American Christians are often more devoted to Israel’s survival than American Jews are. At the same time, many Jews feel they have more to fear from fundamentalist Christians than from fundamentalist Islamics!

I know what you’re thinking, ladies and gentlemen, but keep in mind I only said I’d try to explain it. I never said it would make sense.

To Red Pills home page.
The image used in this post was obtained from HERE and is basically unaltered. This article, excluding the material cited or the material which is included herein but written by other authors or material covered by other copyrights, is copyright © 2008, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved.
Gary Shumway is the author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.

9 - Tracking the Population and Their Activities

From “The New American” of April 2, 2007 on page 8:
“Congress passed legislation in 2005 that required each state to adopt uniform driver’s licenses and identification cards by 2008. This new law, known as the Real ID Act, has been opposed by some lawmakers from the beginning because it poses a threat to the privacy of American Citizens. After its passage, the act went largely uncritiqued. However, now that states are finally realizing the fiscal implications of the act, more and more states are finally opposing its final implementation.
“State legislatures worry that there is no indication as to how much the act will cost, who will pay for it, and whether or not it would actually make people safer from terrorist threats. At least 22 states have formally introduced legislation opposing the Real ID Act, and an estimated 20 more states are planning to introduce such legislation.
“States have until October 7, 2007 to submit a report detailing how they will comply with the Real ID Act. Then states will have until May 11, 2008 to fully implement the program. If states do not comply with the federal restrictions, those states’ residents would be unable to board a plane or enter a federal building. However, with this new outcry from state lawmakers – as well as a number of advocacy groups – the Real ID Act could yet be undone by Congress.”

If all of the states that have threatened to oppose it, actually do, it wouldn’t really matter if Congress undid the act or not. If 42 of our states refuse to comply the act couldn’t be implemented as that would destroy the business of the government and the airplane industry. Anyway, this act isn’t actually about protecting us from terrorists, it is actually about registering us, in an easily monitored way.

Reading further in “The New American” issue of May 14, 2007 on page 12 we find an extensive article headed by the title: “Monitoring Americans” subtitle: “Since 9/11 the United States has been putting in place the infrastructure needed to complete the construction of an all-encompassing police state.” The first paragraph speaks of a black uniformed police force equipped with military style helmets in New York City that has as a goal “. . . to deliver shock and awe to onlookers and to potential terrorists.” They are “. . . in the business of scaring people,” they appear randomly around the city and are called the Hercules team. Interesting that they are dressed in black and resemble the Gestapo of Germany of World War II. This is not an accident. The article goes on to say, “The fact that government is increasingly surveilling civil society indicates that government no longer trusts the people. In a society in which people are placed under constant surveillance, government no longer serves the people, but seeks to be their master.”

Continuing further in the article and while speaking of the cell phone network we find: “Enacted in 1994 and expanded in 2005 by the FCC at the request of the Department of Justice and the FBI, the Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act requires service providers to build surveillance technology into their networks.” In an interesting side view we notice that in “Star Trek: The Next Generation” television series the location of any individual is determined via his or her communicator. A technology very possible in real life today.

Here is another technology advance being considered for use to track Americans. Note the following reported by ABC News:

Spy Satellites Turned on the U.S.
Dems Call for Moratorium on Program, Expressing Privacy and Legal Concerns
By JASON RYAN
Sept. 6, 2007 —

“Traditionally, powerful spy satellites have been used to search for strategic threats overseas ranging from nuclear weapons to terrorist training camps.
“But now the Department of Homeland Security has developed a new office to use the satellites to secure U.S. borders and protect the country from natural disasters.
“Department of Homeland Security officials testified Thursday before the House Homeland Security Committee about the program and faced extensive criticism about the privacy and civil liberty concerns of the new office, called the National Applications Office.
“The purpose of the National Applications Office is to provide the Department of Homeland Security and civil, state and local emergency planners with imagery and data from satellites run by the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency.
“Homeland Security Chief Intelligence Officer Charlie Allen said overhead imagery was used extensively after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, and has been used by the Secret Service for security preparations for events such as the Super Bowl.
“Some Homeland Security and law enforcement users also in the past routinely accessed imagery and other technical intelligence directly from the intelligence community, especially in response to national disasters such as hurricanes and forest fires,” Allen said.
Committee members expressed concern about abuse of the satellite imagery, charging that Homeland Security had not informed the oversight committee about the program.
“What’s most disturbing is learning about it from The Wall Street Journal,” said Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss.
The lawmakers also expressed concern about using military capabilities for U.S. law enforcement and Homeland Security operations, potentially a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from serving as a law enforcement body within the United States, except where specifically authorized by Congress or the Constitution.
“In written testimony, Dan Sutherland, the Homeland Security officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, assured the committee, “We will assist the NAO by keeping a watchful eye on several key civil liberties issues.”
“Department of Homeland Security officials said that the National Applications Office would review requests from agencies such as the FBI and the border patrol for the imagery.
“We will not be able to penetrate buildings & there could be some infrared capabilities,” Allen said.
“Committee members said that in addition to not being informed about the National Applications Office program, they had not yet been provided with documents defining the limits and legal guidance about the program.
“Late Thursday, top Democrats on the committee sent a letter to Homeland Security saying, “We are so concerned that, as the department’s authorizing committee, we are calling for a moratorium on the program.”
“Homeland Security Committee Chairman Thompson, along with subcommittee chairs Reps. Jane Harman, D-Calif., and Chris Carney, D-Pa., also wrote, “Today’s testimony made clear that there is effectively no legal framework governing the domestic use of satellite imagery for the various purposes envisioned by the department. & The use of geospatial information from military intelligence satellites may turn out to be a valuable tool in protecting the homeland.”
“The committee members have asked that Homeland Security provide the committee with legal documents and the standard operating procedures for the program before they consider the issue further.
“Referring to the recent controversy over the potential abuse of the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program, Rep. Harman said at Thursday’s hearing that the Bush administration “has been making security policy in the executive branch without full regard for the laws that Congress has passed.”
Allen said the National Applications Office would operate “in accordance with the laws.”
“Although Homeland Security had notified the appropriations committee of the program, Allen apologized to the members of the Homeland Security Committee for not being more forward with them.
“You briefed the appropriators, not the authorizers,” Thompson charged.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

This reports the possibility of our military technology being turned on us in the name of our protection. This article implies that it is just in the process of being reviewed and can be contained, but is it or can it be? Remember the concept “Those who give up liberty for security will have neither.” Our current society is so obsessed with security that they have forgotten what liberty really means. If the attitude of today’s society had existed in the 1800’s we would still live East of the Appalachian Mountains. The use of these spy satellites could eventually lead step by step into using this technology to fight crime. Then it is just a small step to new definitions of what crime is. This is another program that can turn and bite the hand that allows it.

From “The New American” September 17, 2007 page 8:

Chertoff to Punish States That Don’t Accept Real ID

“More than half the nation’s states have passed or proposed legislation opposing the federally mandated Real ID plan in some way or another. This 2005 legislation requires the states to issue new driver’s licenses based on federal standards for all drivers by the year 2013, and will link state driver’s license databases into one huge federal database.
“In response to states’ opposition, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has issued a threat to the rebellious states, saying that the Real ID cards would still be made mandatory for all “federal purposes” when it comes to traveling, including boarding an airplane, walking into a federal building or nuclear facility, or picnicking at one’s favorite national park.
“In an August speech to the National Conference of State Legislatures in Boston, Chertoff said citizens in states that don’t comply with the new rules will have to then use passports for his “federal purposes.” He added: “This is not a mandate. A state doesn’t have to do this, but if the state doesn’t have – at the end of the day, at the end of the deadline – Real ID-compliant licenses, then the state cannot expect that those licenses will be accepted for federal purposes.”

Not a mandate??????? How can he be so blind. If this continues as legislated we will not even be able to use a national park without proper ID, even a passport. This is just a first step in a series of actions to control the population. These steps could lead to national identification papers that will have to be presented to cross borders even in private cars, that will be enforced as interstate commerce. In the past only countries of a police state have had such restrictions. Another of our freedoms piece-mealed down the drain.

Let’s take a moment and look at the Homeland Security Chief.

Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security Secretary in 2007

Details of his public service from the on line Wikipedia Encyclopedia

1. Appointed US Attorney for the State of New York in 1990.

2. Stayed on in the position when President Clinton took office based on the request of Democratic Senator Bill Bradley. He was the only US Attorney not replaced.
Note: William Warren “Bill” Bradley (born July 28, 1943) is an American hall of fame basketball player, Rhodes scholar, former U.S. Senator from New Jersey and presidential candidate, who opposed Vice-President Al Gore for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President in the 2000 election.

3. He was the co-author of the USA Patriot Act under President George Bush.

4. He was a fund raiser for President George Bush.

5. Speaking of Hurricane Katrina: “While defending the federal government’s response in a September 3, 2005 press conference, Chertoff asserted “That ‘perfect storm’ of a combination of catastrophes exceeded the foresight of the planners, and maybe anybody’s foresight.” Warnings of the levee’s vulnerability to Cat 4 and above hurricanes had in fact come for years from experts in the private sector as well as government agencies at all levels, including FEMA itself, who had identified a disaster such as this as one of the three most likely catastrophes to strike the US.“

6. “Chertoff was the Bush administration’s point man for pushing the comprehensive immigration reform bill, a measure that stalled in the Senate in June 2007”

7. BBC Profile January 11, 2005 included the following:
“Mr. Chertoff had previously headed the Justice Department’s criminal division - from 2001 to 2003 - and played a key role in the legal response to the 11 September attacks, helping to craft the war on terror strategy, says Daniela Relph in Washington.
“In the mid-1990s, he was a special counsel for the US Senate’s committee that investigated the Whitewater affair involving former President Bill Clinton.
“Mr. Chertoff has been described as the driving force behind some of the most controversial initiatives in the war on terrorism, our correspondent adds.
“Civil liberties groups have accused him of curtailing free speech and the rights of criminal defendants.
“Mr. Chertoff, 51, is set to replace Tom Ridge, first chief of the Department for Homeland Security, which was created in the wake of the 2001 attacks and is responsible for preventing terror strikes on the US.

Even though I don’t have any sure evidence that Michael Chertoff is a part of the International Banking Establishment note the following items:
1. He was championed by Senator Bill Bradley who is a Rhodes Scholar. The Rhodes scholarship program was founded by Cecil Rhodes who was also a part of the formation of the Fabian Society which has been a major tool of the International Banking Establishment.
2. Bill Clinton was also a Rhodes Scholar.
3. Both Presidents Bush used him in their administrations and they both hold major roles in the activities of the International Banking Establishment and were both members of the Order of Skull & Bones Secret Society at Yale.
4. He was the only US Attorney to continue in office from the senior Bush’s administration to Clinton’s administration and then back to the next Bush’s activities. It is a normal thing for those of the International Banking Establishment to slide from one party’s administration to the other seamlessly.
5. He was the co-author of the USA Patriot Act which has been used repeatedly to undermine our freedoms.
6. He played a key role in the legal response to the 11 September attacks, helping to craft the war on terror strategy.
7. He played a key role in the immigration bill fiasco that was defeated in late summer 2007.
8. He is putting pressure on the states to pass the Real ID Act that requires all citizens to have a government ID card for travel and many activities. A significant abuse of the power of the federal government.

There is a saying that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it must be a duck.

To redpills.org home page.
This article, excluding the material cited or the material which is included herein but written by other authors or material covered by other copyrights, is copyright © 2007, by Richard Proctor. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s name is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved.

Okay, Ron Paul has yet (maybe he will, maybe he won’t) endorse all the ‘liberty minded candidates’. Yes, it would be great if he did and thus Marc Gallagher does have a point. But, I would opine that, Ron Paul is just one player (though a major one) in the liberty movement or ‘Revolution’. May I suggest we hitch our wagons to the movement, not to a specific single individual or party?

I appreciate Marc bringing forth names of those we should consider as leaders in the liberty movement, e.g., Vern McKinley, Amit Singh, Brent Sanders, Greg Lewis, Joe Ferguson, Teresa Sheppard, Peter Vidrine, and Jason Thompson. But remember Ron Paul has run successfully as a Republican in Texas District 12 for 10 (going on 11) terms. He knows the ropes and what he must do to best effect change for his constituents (and remain in power).

Yet on the broader canvas, We The People, must support the best liberty candidates in our districts, regardless of Dr. Paul. We must keep our eye on the ball and enthusiastically support these and other candidates regardless of Ron Paul’s endorsement, or lack thereof. This is our duty as informed citizens and voters. Since when have we started supporting only those candidates some other individual supports vs. doing our own homework and casting our informed ballots?

I am casting my vote for the individual who best supports the liberty movement, regardless of party, ability to actually win, or some other individual’s endorsement. IMHO, we must always vote for the best candidate, not the least evil of two evils, or we will NEVER effect change toward liberty.

I suggest if we have questions as to why Dr. Paul supports one candidate over another that we simply ask him. Maybe he has additional information we don’t or maybe we will disagree with him. Become informed and cast your own ballot, not Ron Paul’s.

Article from libertymaven.com dated 05/09/2008 by Marc Gallagher entitled “What? Ron Paul Plays GOP Party Politics Too?”

Readers of Liberty Maven know by now how much we adore Ron Paul and his message of freedom, prosperity, and peace. That does not mean we can’t be critical of him when circumstances call for it. Anyone who views the list of candidates Ron Paul has endorsed for office should notice something missing. He hasn’t endorsed a single candidate who is running against an incumbent Republican in a primary.

As a Ron Paul supporter of all the liberty minded candidates it greatly concerns me that Ron Paul has not endorsed some candidates who are close to 100% in line with his platform. A perfect example of this is the race in Virginia’s 10th District between Vern McKinley and incumbent Frank Wolf. Vern McKinley is about 90% aligned with Paul on the issues. Frank Wolf is an Iraq war supporter, who voted for both SCHIP and minimum wage increases along with the Democrats. Wolf voted against repealing the DC gun ban. Wolf voted for Bush’s prescription drug plan. Wolf just had a bill that he sponsored signed into law by President Bush that will make property rights advocates vomit.

Ron Paul has enthusiastically endorsed Amit Singh in Virginia’s 8th district. He appeared in a YouTube video with Singh endorsing him and helping him promote his money bomb on May 15: lunchbomb.com. Ron Paul is even going to appear at a fund raising event for Amit Singh on May 14th. I love Amit Singh as a candidate as much as I love McKinley. I encourage everyone to participate in his money bomb, but Amit Singh is not running against a GOP incumbent in the primary. McKinley is.

In 1998, Ron Paul cited Vern McKinley’s work in testimony on the Financial Freedom Act Of 1997. Yet he has yet to endorse McKinley for Congress?

Is Ron Paul playing party politics by not endorsing against Republican incumbents? I don’t know the answer to that, but the evidence suggests that he is. Vern McKinley is not the only GOP incumbent opponent without a Ron Paul endorsement. Brent Sanders, Greg Lewis, Joe Ferguson, Teresa Sheppard, Peter Vidrine, and Jason Thompson are all liberty minded Republican candidates running against neo-conservative GOP incumbents who have not received endorsements from Dr. Paul.

I’ve always admired Ron Paul because he seemed focused on the issues rather than playing political chess. This endorsement fiasco is exactly the type of thing I’d expect from other politicians, not Paul. Needless to say I’m disappointed. Hopefully, Ron Paul will end up endorsing some of these candidates. I would think he would make it a priority to endorse against GOP incumbents, not an exception.

After all, we can’t take the Republican Party back to the Constitution without unseating neo-conservatives with liberty minded Republican candidates.

To Red Pills home page.
Not all links in original document included. Thank you to Donna Coe for bringing this article to my attention. This article, excluding the material cited or the material which is included herein but written by other authors or material covered by other copyrights, is copyright © 2008, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved.
Gary Shumway is the author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.

If you are not yet convinced regarding the blurring of reporting and opinion by main-stream reporters, then the link below is but another example. These reporters, who have the eyes and ears of millions and are thus able to effect the perceived reality of their unsophisticated/uncritical readers/viewers, too often give their opinion as if they are reporting fact.

Obviously we all have our opinions. Yet when an opinion is couched in terms that would lead one to believe it as fact, then it tends to be a much more powerful statement than preferencing one’s remarks with “in my opinion”. It is sad to see numerous main-stream reporters opting to influence their sycophants with their opinions reported as fact.

With the continuance of this type of behavior, I can only be encouraged by the continued loss of readers/viewers by those unscrupulous reporters. Long live the Internet!

BTW, in case there is any question, I am not, nor purport myself to be, a reporter. I do not get paid for reporting the news. I do try my best to discuss the facts and champion truth but I am anything but an unbiased reporter of the news. (Now my attorney can rest easy.)

Here is the link to videos regarding the above topic: http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?U=7081&RID=11277980

To Red Pills home page.
This article, excluding the material cited or the material which is included herein but written by other authors or material covered by other copyrights, is copyright © 2008, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved.
Gary Shumway is the author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.

I fully intended to post articles herein during our five-day ride from Mexico to Fallon, NV (ultimately to Canada) but riding a dual sport motorcycle (Suzuki DR-Z400S) all day (some eighty percent of the distance in the dirt), getting ready for the next day, fixing flats (brother got two in one day - guess who helped fix them!), effecting mechanical repairs, eating (we did eat too much), and getting up at 5:30 (ARGHHHH!) just doesn’t leave the time nor energy to get an article posted. I have previously posted when really tired, but being bone-tired is yet another thing.

On the other hand, we have seen some great country and areas we have not previously ridden. There is plenty in this great country to see! My brother and I were never the first in to the day’s destination (some saw it as a race - we didn’t), but we certainly enjoyed the ride and the challenge. We finish our adventure by riding the Fallon, NV to Canada section in August (it is too cold/snowed-in now).

I intend to be back at it with a post for Monday, May 12th.

It is good to learn that on 4/26/2008, Chuck Baldwin, was elected the Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party at their Kansas City, MO convention. At the Utah State Constitution Party convention the county delegates overwhelmingly supported Chuck. I will repost the Constitution Party notice below and below that is Chuck Baldwin’s column for 5/2/2008 entitled, “If I were President“. Good reading, take a look see.

From the Constitution Party web site:

04/26/2008

Chuck Baldwin Captures Constitution Party Presidential Nomination!

Largest 3rd Party {The Libertarians and the Constitution Party bicker about this all the time…though not really germane.} Presidential Candidate To Challenge “Big Box” Parties

Kansas City, Mo. (April 26,2008) The Constitution Party chose a presidential candidate at a nominating convention held this weekend in Kansas City, MO. Former Constitution Party Vice Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin was chosen by delegates from state affiliates of the third largest federally-recognized political party, based on voter registrations (www.ballot-access.org).

Baldwin, a pastor, writer and conservative talk show host won the nomination from a field of eight prospective nominees, including former U.N. Ambassador and Asst. Secretary of State in the Reagan administration, Dr. Alan Keyes.

Baldwin, who founded the Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida, addressed the Constitution Party delegates in a passionate speech that outlined his concern that elected officials from both the Republican and Democrat parties had abandoned the principles of limited government. {I will likely either vote for Chuck or do a Ron Paul write-in. But let’s see who the Libertarians champion.}

Baldwin decried “the bi-partisan complicity that has allowed the illegal, immoral, unconstitutional war that has resulted in the slaughter of four thousand American soldiers and untold innocent Iraqis”. Baldwin went on to point out “If elected, I will end the lunacy that sends Americans abroad to guard the borders of Iraq, while leaving our borders wide open, inviting illegals to plunder the wealth and good will of American citizens”. Baldwin’s remarks were interrupted by a number of thunderous standing ovations making it clear his message resonated with the party faithful.

Chuck Baldwin, a Constitution Party member for a number of years, promised, that if elected he would work to protect the lives of the unborn, abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve, support home schooling, and “eviscerate” vast numbers of unconstitutional federal programs like the Department of Energy (“we have more than enough oil in Alaska”) and Social Security (“which is nothing more than socialism”). Baldwin promised to get “the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.”, to abolish the department of Homeland Security and to end foreign aid.

Constitution Party delegates chose Baldwin over Dr. Alan Keyes, by a vote of 384 to 126.

“Alan Keyes is a principled and remarkably gifted statesman, and we hope he chooses to join the Constitution Party and support our efforts; however, when all was said and done, the delegates were apparently persuaded that Chuck Baldwin was more aligned with our party’s platform especially on issues like the U.N., the Iraq war and foreign aid”, commented Constitution Party National Committee Chairman Jim Clymer.

Chuck Baldwin said his Washington “outsider” status would likely be considered a plus in this election, saying many “dissatisfied Americans have come to view political insiders as carriers of ‘big government disease’ ”. Baldwin vowed to honor his oath to uphold the Constitution. He acknowledged that the Christian principles of our Founding documents guaranteed liberty for people of all creeds, and “pledge(d) to cultivate a climate in D.C. which reins in government and reminds those in power they are bound by limits set in place by our Constitution.

Now here is Chuck’s column for 5/2/2008 entitled “If I Were President“:

Due to my frequent criticisms of President George W. Bush, I am often asked what I would do if I were President of these United States. This column will serve as an attempt to answer that question.

If I were President, I would begin the process of safely extracting our troops from Iraq. In the first place, our troops are no longer fighting a war, they are an occupation force, which occupies a sovereign country. And this is being done without a Declaration of War. The Iraqi people resent our occupation as much as we would resent another nation stronger than ours invading and occupying America. If such a thing happened to our beloved country, I’m sure many of us would also become “insurgents.”

In the second place, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was absolutely unnecessary. Instead of sacrificing more than 4,000 American lives and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens (not to mention some 2-3 trillion dollars), President Bush should have supported Ron Paul’s bill, H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. This is the constitutional way to deal with rogue terrorist organizations. This is the way President Thomas Jefferson responded to the Barbary pirates.

According to Congressman Paul, “A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the President the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.”

Had President Bush responded in this manner, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved, trillions of dollars would not have needed to be spent, Osama bin Laden and most of his fellow terrorists would likely be dead, and we would not be bogged down in a nightmarish military quagmire in Iraq. And, if I were President, this is exactly how I would handle terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda.

Furthermore, it is absolutely ludicrous to say we are fighting a war on terror half way around the world when we refuse to secure our borders and ports. If I were President, I would immediately seal our borders. I would also see to it that employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In plain language: any employer who consciously hires illegal aliens would go to jail. They would not pass Go; they would not collect $200; they would go straight to jail.

By sealing the borders and by cutting off the money supply to illegal aliens, the problem of illegal immigration would dry up. As it is, we have no idea how many potential terrorists–not to mention violent gang members such as MS-13–have snuck (and are sneaking) through our borders.

And speaking of illegal immigration, as President, I would enforce our visa rules. This means anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law is immediately deported. There would be no “path to citizenship” given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. Not in any shape, manner, or form. I would not allow tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens’ education, social services, or medical care. As President, I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no “anchor babies” during my administration.

If I were President, I would use the bully pulpit of the White House to encourage Congress to pass Congressman Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act. In short, this bill would do two things: First, it would declare that unborn babies are persons under the law. Second, under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In essence, this bill would immediately overturn Roe v. Wade and end legalized abortion.

Republicans tout themselves as being “pro-life.” Yet, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for six years and did absolutely nothing to overturn Roe or end abortion-on-demand. Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades. And if Congress refused to pass Dr. Paul’s bill, I would use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.

On the subject of foreign policy, as President, I would end foreign aid. I would also end the current infatuation with nation-building, empire-building, and interventionism. America is not the world’s policeman. Neither are our military personnel the personal militia of the United Nations.

Remember that President Bush told the U.N. in 2003 that the reason we invaded Iraq was for the purpose of securing the “peace and credibility of the United Nations.” (I lie not; that is what he said.) President Bush also placed the U.S. back under UNESCO in spite of the fact that President Reagan had heroically taken the U.S. out from under that sinister organization.

I am sure that readers recall that the U.N. Charter was authored by a Soviet communist agent (Alger Hiss) and that the U.S. has been fighting wars for the U.N. ever since the organization was created back in 1945.

Speaking of the United Nations, as President, I would withhold funds from the support of the United Nations. In other words, I would get the U.S. out of the U.N. Beyond that, when I move into the White House, the U.N.’s rent is up! They move out of New York City post haste.

By the same token, there is absolutely no reason for us to be in NATO. We should not be antagonizing Russia by attempting to expand NATO. There is no reason why Russia could not become a friend and ally of the United States. Free and fair trade with Russia and a noninterventionist foreign policy in Europe would do much to endear American interests to Russia. To insist on expanding and empowering NATO only serves to further alienate Russia and drive her to make alliances with Communist China.

Speaking of China, it is time that we recognize the very serious threat that China poses to the peace and security of the United States. Our trade practices serve only to allow corporate America to continue to invest in what will surely become an albatross around the neck of our well-being. We must discontinue the practice of allowing China to export its cheap products to the U.S. with no protection for America’s jobs and manufacturing, not to mention the lack of protection for our safety. This must stop, and it will stop when I become President. “Free trade” will no longer mean a free ride for Red China.

Furthermore, as President, I would take the preservation of our nation’s sovereignty and independence extremely seriously. This means that the burgeoning North American Union is dead on arrival the day I am sworn in as President. Gone, too, is the NAFTA superhighway. And for that matter, I would lead the United States out of NAFTA and CAFTA altogether. And any prospect for the FTAA would be dead as well.

As President, I would be the best friend that gun owners (and lawful gun dealers), homeschoolers, and veterans ever had in the White House. These are three of the most persecuted, harassed, or overlooked groups of people in the country. But not if I were President.

There is no reason why our veterans should wait for weeks and months to receive the medical care they need. It is disgraceful that we would ask our brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces to fight our country’s battles and then leave them to pretty much fend for themselves when it comes to receiving adequate health care. I would make taking care of our veterans an extremely high priority, if I were President.

If I were President, I would also do everything in my power to locate and retrieve any and all MIAs. I personally believe that there are hundreds of our servicemen who are yet being held against their will in various parts of the world. I would make finding them and bringing them home of utmost priority, if I were President.

On the home front, if I were President, I would end corporate welfare. I would also work to disband the Department of Energy (along with the Department of Education and many other federal departments). There is absolutely no reason for us to be dependent upon OPEC. There is enough gas and oil under the soil of Alaska (not to mention the Dakotas and the Gulf of Mexico) to meet the energy needs of the United States for the next 150-200 years. There is also no reason that gas should cost more than $1.50 a gallon (which is about what it was before Bush became President).

We must begin drilling for the domestic oil that we know exists; we must build more refineries and nuclear power plants. There is no reason why the United States cannot be mostly energy independent. It is time we started putting the people and interests of the United States ahead of the CEOs and interests of international corporations.

Lastly, if I were President, I would work feverishly to overturn the Sixteenth Amendment, which would repeal the Income Tax. And, no, I would not promote a national sales tax. That would be disastrous! Can you imagine what a 30% sales tax would do to the cost of EVERYTHING? Plus, give politicians a national sales tax to increase and just imagine what kind of percent that would grow into!

I would also work to repeal the “death tax,” inheritance taxes, and property taxes. The American people are already paying somewhere between 30% and 40% of their income to Uncle Sam. It must stop. We are bankrupting our country with this incessant and burdensome tax system. In addition, I would work to expunge the Federal Reserve and to restore the American economy to sound money.

Now, I hear people say, That’s easy for you to say; you are not a candidate for President. Ah, but now I am.

Last week, in its national nominating convention in Kansas City, Missouri, the Constitution Party nominated me as its 2008 Presidential candidate. Party delegates nominated me over Ambassador Alan Keyes by a margin of 74% to 24%. Therefore, I am now a candidate for President of these United States.

See the CP website at http://www.constitutionparty.com

My Vice Presidential running mate is Darrell Castle, an attorney and Vietnam War Marine Corps veteran from Memphis, Tennessee.

Our web site is not online yet, but will be soon. We will be able to receive credit card donations when the web page is uploaded. The address of my campaign web site is: http://www.baldwin2008.com

In the meantime, if anyone wants to support our campaign, checks may be written to:

Baldwin 2008
P.O. Box 131
Palmyra, New Jersey 08065

I believe it is only fair, as I continue to write these columns, that one understands the full disclosure of my candidacy.

As readers know, I enthusiastically supported Ron Paul during the Republican Primary season. I plan to continue to trumpet his call for limited government, non-interventionism abroad, constitutional government, and freedom into the general election as a Third Party candidate.

I do not expect the national media to pay us much heed; they seldom do. I do not expect to receive large donations from corporate America. I do expect criticism and ridicule. That is nothing new. However, I also anticipate tens of thousands of freedom-loving people from all religious persuasions and walks of life to rally to our cause. Why? Because thousands of principled people will not be bullied into voting for the “evil of two lessers” being shoved down our throats by the two major parties. Because this campaign is not about Chuck Baldwin. It is not about a political party. It is about freedom. It is about constitutional government. It is about restoring America to the founding principles bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers. If you believe in those principles, join us!

In the meantime, these columns will continue to serve as a voice for America’s founding principles, as they have for the past eight-plus years. In addition, unlike the candidates from the two major parties, the taxpayers are not underwriting my campaign, and I will continue my day job. (Imagine that: a Presidential candidate who actually works for a living!) And all of this is just in time for my 56th birthday, which is tomorrow, May 3.

There you have it: this is what I would do if I were President of these wonderful United States of America.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

To Red Pills home page.
This article, excluding the material cited or the material which is included herein but written by other authors or material covered by other copyrights, is copyright © 2008, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved.
Gary Shumway is the author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.