Liberty and Accessibility

Saturday, June 30, 2007


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:21:11 -0000
From: Philip Blumel <>

For more information, contact Jared Bland at (954) 603-7244

Ron Paul supporters to rally in Hollywood on July 4

HOLLYWOOD, FL -- Supporters of Republican presidential candidate Rep.
Ron Paul (R-TX) will be holding a pro-Paul sign-waving rally from 5-7
p.m. on Wednesday, July 4, outside the Young Republicans National
Convention at the Westin Diplomat Resort in Hollywood, Fla.

The rally is scheduled to be held as delegates to the convention --
mostly young and influential Republican primary voters -- are
arriving for the four-day convention. Some of the rally participants
will be YRNC conventioneers.

"Young people are a natural constituency for Ron Paul, which is clear
from his outsized popularity on the internet," said Jared Bland, 18,
of Coral Springs, an organizer of the event. "Young people are less
jaded, more attracted to principle and more open to new ideas."

Ron Paul distinguished himself in the early Republican presidential
debates as a consistent proponent of lower taxes, less government and
expanded personal and economic liberty. Ron Paul calls for less
government intervention abroad, in the domestic economy and in the
personal lives of Americans.

The sign-waving event is being organized by the Broward County Ron
Paul Meetup, a local internet-based group that has attracted 33
members since it debuted on June 12. There are currently 31 Ron Paul
meetups in Florida (see for a complete list)
boasting well over 1,000 members.

"No other candidate has this much active support across Florida this
early," Bland said. "Our Meetup's job is to spark interest among the
broader electorate and this will be the first of many awareness-
raising events."

The Westin Diplomat Resort is located at 3555 S. Ocean Drive in

Friday, June 29, 2007

Ron Paul on Coast to Coast- June 19th

Email services by FreedomBox. Surf the Net at the sound of your voice.

[FL4RonPaul] Excellent In-Depth Ron Paul Q+A (Many Issues) (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:42:34 -0400
From: Frank Gonzalez <>
To: Frank Gonzalez <>
Subject: [FL4RonPaul] Excellent In-Depth Ron Paul Q+A (Many Issues)

BlankOnce again, please note that, although I am running as a Ron Paul
Democrat, he and I differ on the abortion and gay equality issues. I have
no problem with either of these social and ultimately PERSONAL issues.

Furthermore, I too favor the most controversial of stem-cell research,
though, like Paul, completely oppose building yet another bureaucracy by
extorting taxpayers to pay for it. Theft is wrong if we do it to each
other, and we should not forget that allowing this would mean violating an
ethical principle.

When are we, as adult Americans, going to take responsibility for ourselves
and only call for programs when the government is economically solvent?

When are we going to stop irresponsibly throwing OUR desires on the heads of
our future generations?

Do we not care that we will leave them a horrible and crushing and bleak

Frank J. Gonzalez
A Ron Paul Democrat for US House (FL-21) in 2008
2006 results here:
Updates & commentary:

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as
necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus
building a wall of separation between church and state."

--founder of the Democratic Party, 3rd President of the United States,
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)


Muckraker Report
An Interview with Presidential Candidate Congressman Ron Paul

Joseph Murtagh

An Interview with Presidential Candidate Congressman Ron Paul
June 28, 2007

Muckraker Report: You seem to have a stronger anti-war stance than even many
of the Democratic candidates: unlike Hillary Clinton, for instance, you
voted against the Iraq war. In terms of foreign policy, what would a Ron
Paul presidency look like?

Congressman Ron Paul: Well, it certainly wouldn't involve going to war with
countries that pose no threat to us. The 2002 Iraq war resolution
transferred the authority and responsibility for waging war from the
legislature to the executive branch, which is a total breach of the
principles of the U.S. Constitution. James Madison pointed this out in
1798, that because the executive is the branch of government most interested
in war, the question of war must be vested in the legislature – "with
studied care," I believe his exact words were. You can't have presidents
waging war willy-nilly for reasons that are fundamentally at odds with the
basic interests of the American people. I voted against that resolution
because I believe strongly that we should avoid getting entangled in foreign
alliances and instead seek peace and trade with all nations. This is a
reflection of the wisdom of the Founders, who advocated a
non-interventionist foreign policy, the most eloquent expression of which
can be found in George Washington's Farewell Address. So to answer your
question, if I were president, I would do my best to follow in the footsteps
of the Founders by abiding by the rules laid out in the U.S. Constitution,
which means limiting the power of the executive to wage war.

Muckraker Report: Each year, the U.S. gives billions of dollars in foreign
aid to Israel, which, many academics have argued, not only fuels anger and
hostility towards the United States among Muslims in the Middle East, but
places a heavy burden on the U.S. taxpayer. As president, would you do
anything to address this imbalance in America's foreign aid policy?

Congressman Ron Paul: I'm with the academics on this one. Anyone who is
even remotely aware of the facts knows that American foreign policy in the
Middle East has stirred up enormous anger among Muslims, our support for
Israel included, and you're correct to say that it's the American taxpayer
who's shouldering much of the burden. Also, the sanctions in Iraq during
Clinton's presidency, which killed nearly as many Iraqis as have died under
the Bush presidency, and the presence of our military bases in Saudi
Arabia – together with the situation in Israel, these actions are used by
extremists and jihadists as justification for killing Americans. Just look
at bin Laden's public statements throughout the nineties. Can you imagine
what it would be like if parts of the United States were occupied by a
foreign power, if China was building military bases the size of the Vatican
in Kansas? People would be up in arms! This isn't to say that we "invited"
the attacks of 9/11, or any other terrorist attacks, but simply that our
policy decisions have certain consequences that we might wish to avoid. The
CIA has given a name for this – "blowback." This was the subject of my
recent disagreement with Rudy Giuliani in the debate, who has no idea what
he's talking about. On a global playing field, deeds can have a way of
rebounding on the doer, which is why the older imperial powers tended to be
very cautious in their dealings with strange peoples in foreign lands. The
Clinton and Bush administrations have been absolutely incompetent in
comparison. This doesn't mean that I'm against the idea of spreading the
concept of freedom, just not with the barrel of a gun. Like I said, my
solution would be to follow the wisdom of the Founders, which means a
non-interventionist foreign policy, getting rid of foreign aid to all
nations, including Israel. We ought to lead by example, not by coercion or
special interest: this was what the Founders had in mind.

Muckraker Report: Where do you stand on Guantanamo?

Congressman Ron Paul: Shut it down. The current rationale at Guantanamo is
based on the false premise that detainees are not entitled to due process
protections. I support court decisions recognizing fundamental human
rights, such as habeas corpus. Again, this is an issue that flies in the
face of our civic and legal traditions as outlined in the Constitution. As
such, I see no purpose for continuing the facility.

Muckraker Report: In his book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid," former
president Jimmy Carter has argued that AIPAC, the so-called "Israeli Lobby"
in Washington, exerts an undue influence on America's foreign policy
decisions in the Middle East. Do you agree?

Congressman Ron Paul: The First Amendment grants all citizens the right to
petition the U.S. government, and this applies to AIPAC as much as anyone
else. However, I oppose certain lobbying groups having more of an undue
influence than others, and since one of the main purposes of AIPAC is to
lobby for generous taxpayer subsidies to Israel, that portion of their
influence would end under my administration.

Muckraker Report: Would you advocate trading with Iran?

Congressman Ron Paul: I believe in free-markets, and I think the goal of the
United States should be to have a friendly trading relationship with all
nations. Look at how much we accomplished in Vietnam since we stopped
fighting with them and started trading with them. I believe that it's wrong
for the government to encourage or discourage trade with anyone. So while I
do not advocate trading with Iran in any special or exclusive sense, I would
look at how best to remove government limitations on international trade.
If this should result in increased trade with Iran, then so be it.

Muckraker Report: You're a proponent of free-market capitalism: however,
when I think of the word "capitalism," I tend to picture big multinational
corporations, like Halliburton and Blackwater, both of which have been
granted private no-bid contracts by the federal government, certainly not
"free" in the sense that you mean. When you say "free-market capitalism,"
are you thinking more of the small-business owner?

Congressman Ron Paul: Yes, I'm a proponent of free-market capitalism, and
yes, I think what you point out here about large corporations receiving
no-bid contracts from the federal government is a total subversion of that
process. It's ironic that we often hear members of the political class in
Washington praising the free-market system when clearly by their actions
they have no understanding of what that system means. During my time in
Congress, I've seen firsthand over the years how woefully ignorant
politicians in Washington are of economics, and yet these are the same
people wielding tremendous economic power, through taxes and regulations and
other costs associated with government, borrowing and spending Americans'
hard-earned money without even the most basic understanding of the laws of
economics or the principles of human action, which are incapable of being
suspended as the laws of physics. Many members of Congress have absolutely
no interest in Federal Reserve policy, for instance, even though this policy
determines so much of our economic life, whether through inflation or
interest rates. These issues aren't nearly as complex as many Americans are
falsely led to believe. The market isn't some mysterious inhuman entity,
but a process grounded in the interplay of human choice, that is, in the
total interplay of those with a desire to buy and those with a desire to
sell, and to the extent that the bureaucratic overreach of the federal
government and the influence of special interest and lobbying groups has
interfered with that process, this is something I would work very hard to
fix. Another problem you allude to is the raised barrier of entry for start
up businesses, which places a disproportionate burden on the small-business
owner. Again, removing these burdens and regulations at the federal level
would be a top priority of my administration.

Muckraker Report: What's your stance on NAFTA?

Congressman Ron Paul: I opposed it; my stance has not changed. NAFTA isn't
free trade, its government-managed trade.

Muckraker Report: Your views on monetary policy have been influenced by
Friedrich Hayek and what's known as the "Austrian school of economic
theory." Could you say a bit about what this entails?

Congressman Ron Paul: The approach of the Austrian school is to recognize
economics as grounded in human action, that is, in the creative choices made
by various individuals cooperating together under the division of labor.
The tendency is to view government interference in this process of creative
choice as counterproductive, and there's an emphasis on entrepreneurship as
the driving force in economic development. This is a topic that's much too
vast to go into here, but there are several books I've found influential
that I would recommend to people, if they're interested: The Law by Frederic
Bastiat, Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, What has the Government
done with our Money? by Murray Rothbard, and The Road to Serfdom by
Friedrich Hayek, to name a few. Also the writings of Ludwig von Mises,
particularly the work he did with Friedrich Hayek on what's known as the
"Austrian business cycle theory."

Muckraker Report: You've said that, as president, you would work to abolish
both the federal income tax and the IRS. Why?

Congressman Ron Paul: The federal income tax takes billions of dollars out
of the private sector, with many Americans giving as much as a third of what
they earn to the federal government, which inhibits job growth and penalizes
productive behavior. Also, there are unnecessary privacy violations, and
power gets consolidated at the federal level against the several states.
Our country got along just fine without a federal income tax for its first
126 years, with the government raising revenues through tariffs, excise
taxes, and property taxes. I strongly believe we can do without it, and
that goes for the IRS too.

Muckraker Report: I'm an admirer of the political theorist Hannah Arendt,
who taught that freedom is something that happens between people rather than
to individuals in isolation: you strike me as having a similar understanding
of freedom, one in which freedom is based more on the free association
between people than on the egotism or self-interest of the individual. Am I
correct in saying that?

Congressman Ron Paul: I can't imagine the philosopher who coined the phrase
"the banality of evil" would be too pleased by the current level of
bureaucracy in Washington DC. That said I'm in complete agreement with what
she says about free-association being fundamental to human liberty, since
without it, there could be no assembly, no cooperation, and ultimately no
trade. However, I also feel that property rights are especially important
at the moment, given that eminent domain actions as a result of powerful
corporate interests who want to create an economic federation between
Canada, the US, and Mexico – what's known as the "North American Union" –
are driving American families from their homes and farms. My understanding
of liberty is one that would try to strike a balance between
free-association and rights-based considerations.

Muckraker Report: You differ from the official libertarian platform in being
pro-life: does this come out of your professional experience working as a

Congressman Ron Paul: In my medical career, I've delivered more than 4,000
babies, so naturally my professional experience has influenced my views on
abortion. It's my strong belief that life begins at conception, and that
children in the womb are entitled to inheritance rights. More broadly,
libertarians, like most Americans, respectfully come to different views on
the issue based on their different personal feelings about when human life

Muckraker Report: In my hometown of Ithaca, New York, I have a lot of
friends who I think would be attracted to your strong anti-war stance:
however, your views on certain social issues, such as abortion, would prove
troubling to some people. A woman's right to choose is as much a moral
issue to these people as the preservation of unborn life is to you. As
president, would you be willing to cooperate with these people, in a way
that respects their beliefs?

Congressman Ron Paul: Naturally I'm aware of the extraordinarily sensitive
nature of this subject, and that people hold different views on abortion. I
think we ought to return the issue to the states so that local opinions
could better determine the specific regulations concerning this deeply
personal issue.

Muckraker Report: Another social issue of concern to many people in Ithaca
is gay rights. You've said you're against a Constitutional amendment
banning gay marriage, but you're also against changing federal law to allow
for same-sex marriages. Can you explain your stance on this?

Congressman Ron Paul: Just like with abortion, I believe that marriage is an
issue best decided by the states, not the federal government. I'm opposed
to a federal ban on gay marriage, but it also goes both ways: I'm against
the courts at the federal level pressuring the states into accepting
same-sex marriage licenses. What we're talking about in both cases is the
redefinition of an ancient social institution by the federal government that
's best left to the people to decide at the local level. I have introduced
legislation called the We the People Act to remove deeply personal social
issues like marriage and abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal
courts so the states and local governments can make the decisions, as the
Constitution intends.

Muckraker Report: So if the city council of San Francisco, if the town
assembly of Burlington, if the state of New Hampshire decided to legalize
civil unions between gay couples, you would be okay with that?

Congressman Ron Paul: Yes, if those decisions were made by legislatures, and
not by courts.

Muckraker Report: It seems to me that you make a distinction between the
social and political realms: another way of saying this is that you don't
believe the federal government should legislate morality. How does this
apply on an issue say, like, stem-cell research?

Congressman Ron Paul: Again, like my views on most social issues, I think
the stem-cell issue should be determined by the market. In Washington,
lawmakers either want to prohibit something, or subsidize something. How
about doing neither, and letting people make the decisions! The whole
stem-cell debate involves profound questions of a moral, ethical, and
religious nature, questions that I don't think politicians in Washington are
in a very good position to decide. Asking taxpayers to fund research that
they could very well be opposed to ethically seems to me to be patently
unfair, for instance. I say let the private sector work it out.

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

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

Muckraker Report: That said - where do you stand on the Don Imus

Congressman Ron Paul: As I wrote in a recent article, I found it very
discouraging. The young women on the basketball team are over eighteen and
can speak for themselves. I believe that introducing third parties to speak
collectively for minority groups is inherently racist, since it denies the
rights of minorities to speak as individual people. Furthermore, I was
concerned about the threats to free speech, since now with the FCC
regulating the airwaves and granting broadcast licenses, we're told that it'
s okay for government to restrain certain kinds of insulting or offensive
speech in the name of social tolerance, despite the fact that the First
Amendment explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law." The whole
thing should have been a private employment issue. It points to our society
's uncomfortable obsession with race today, in which people are viewed in
terms of racial group identities rather than as unique individuals. The
solution to this I believe is liberty, which encourages a sense of personal
pride and responsibility, regardless of gender, skin color, or ethnicity.
Racism is a sin of the heart, which can be solved only by mutual tolerance
and respect, not by government.

Muckraker Report: One place where race plays a significant role today, I
think, is in education. Our inner city schools, many of which are
predominately black, are in dismal shape. What do you think can be done to
alleviate the situation?

Congressman Ron Paul: A good place to start would be to get rid of the
bureaucratic control of education by the federal government, which has grown
to gargantuan proportions in recent years. Many people in America don't
realize that most of the money they send to the federal government for
education is never returned to the local schools. It's extremely
inefficient. Far less than half of each tax dollar is spent on our children
's education. Federal funding also comes with strings attached. The more
money we give to Washington, the more power we give to education bureaucrats
to decide the policy. Local schools are forced to carry the burden, even if
it means accepting one-size-fits all education policies that aren't in the
children's best interests. I'm for returning the power to the people to
decide what's best for their children in terms of education, and I have a
steady track record in Congress of supporting legislation that seeks to do
just this.

Muckraker Report: Are you in favor of lowering college tuition rates?

Congressman Ron Paul: Again, I think the free-market should set the price.
Remove the bureaucracy, and the price will go down.

Muckraker Report: What's your position on health care? I know you wouldn't
be in favor of a national health care system, but what about socialized
medicine at the state level?

Congressman Ron Paul: As a practicing physician for 30 years, I find the
pervasiveness of managed care very discouraging. Patients are paying more
and doctors are leaving the profession in droves. It's time to rethink the
whole system. The rise of HMOs has created a harmful collusion between
politicians, drug companies, and organized medicine that raises the price of
healthcare by stifling competition between providers. And all this in favor
of moving us towards universal healthcare! The HMOs didn't originate in the
free-market; they are the result of policy decisions that were made back in
the 1970s. One problem is the 1974 ERISA law, which grants tax benefits to
employers to provide healthcare, while not allowing the same kinds of
incentives for the individual. This creates an unnecessary coupling between
employment and healthcare that is very restrictive on patients' ability to
decide which kinds of healthcare are appropriate for them. I believe
strongly that patients are better served by having an element of choice in
the matter, which is why I support letting the free-market determine
healthcare costs. This won't happen, however, until we unravel the HMO web
and change the tax code to allow individuals to fully deduct healthcare
costs from their taxes, as employers can.

Muckraker Report: You've said that you wish to secure the borders against
illegal immigration and to come up with sound economic policies that
decrease the flow of illegal immigration into the United States. However,
there are 12 million illegal immigrants already present in the country, many
of whom are working honest jobs and just trying to get by. As president,
would you be willing to work with leaders within the immigrants' rights
movement to grant these people their civil liberties under the law with a
goal towards eventual citizenship? Or are you in favor of deportation?

Congressman Ron Paul: While I realize that mass deportation is unrealistic,
I'm opposed to amnesty, because I believe strongly in the rule of law. I
see this matter chiefly as a problem of the welfare state. The majority of
illegal immigrants in this country are exceptionally hard workers, but there
is a small minority receiving housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical
care, and other kinds of welfare from the federal government. This
alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of illegal immigrants, which in
turn causes citizens to form vigilante groups to deal with the issue while
Congress does nothing. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone
coming to America wanted to work hard; with one, however, you can't avoid a
small element of criminals and freeloaders being attracted into the country.
This is why I'm in favor of securing the borders immediately. Federal
entitlement programs such as Social Security are also threatened by the
influx of illegal immigrants into the country. Successive administrations
have supported the so-called "totalization" agreements, by which illegal
immigrants would be allowed to qualify for programs like Social Security,
programs that are already in dire shape and threatening financial ruin for
the United States. Sending benefits abroad to immigrants who once worked
here will cost the United States millions, perhaps even billions, of
dollars. Anyone who hopes to receive Social Security someday should oppose
amnesty and totalization proposals. The problems associated with illegal
immigration cannot be solved overnight, but we cannot begin to address the
issue until we take the difficult steps of securing the borders, rejecting
amnesty, and reaffirming our right as a sovereign nation to control
immigration without apology.

Muckraker Report: The REAL ID act is set to take place in May of 2008. What
are your feelings about a national identification card?

Congressman Ron Paul: I'm against it. The purpose of government is to
protect the liberty of individuals not the secrecy of government.

Muckraker Report: Especially after the release of Al Gore's global warming
documentary, the environment has been very much on people's minds. Where do
you stand on global warming?

Congressman Ron Paul: Global temperatures have been warming since the Little
Ice Age. Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown
that human beings are most likely a part of this process. As a Congressman,
I've done a number of things to support environmentally friendly policies.
I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally
harmful spending, I've opposed foreign wars for oil, and I've spoken out
against government programs that encourage development in environmentally
sensitive areas, such as flood insurance.

Muckraker Report: How about KYOTO?

Congressman Ron Paul: I strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty. Providing for a
clean environment is an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn't do
that. Instead it's placed the burden on the United States to cut emissions
while not requiring China – the world's biggest polluter – and other
polluting third-world countries to do a thing. Also, the regulations are
harmful for American workers, because it encourages corporations to move
their business overseas to countries where the regulations don't apply. It'
s bad science, it's bad policy, and it's bad for America. I am more than
willing to work cooperatively with other nations to come up with policies
that will safeguard the environment, but I oppose all nonbinding resolutions
that place an unnecessary burden on the United States.

Muckraker Report: At the moment, I have several friends who are operating
marijuana farms in northern California. The right to grow marijuana for
medical purposes is protected under California state law, but it's illegal
according to federal law. Naturally, these friends of mine are concerned
about the future of their livelihoods. What would you say to them?

Congressman Ron Paul: As a medical doctor, I have a special interest in this
issue. Tell your friends I support their livelihoods and strongly oppose
any attempt by the federal government to infringe upon the right to grow
medical marijuana in California under Proposition 215 of California state
law. The Ninth and Tenth amendments make it very clear that under our
federal system, the states retain the full authority to craft their own
laws. The federal government has only limited powers, and can therefore
preempt the states only in a very narrow range of federal matters. This
essential principle of our Constitutional Republic is being ridden roughshod
over by imperial Washington, which bullies local governments into accepting
its illegal and unconstitutional policies.

Muckraker Report: Last February, I published an article at the Muckraker
Report called "9/11 Widows Keep on Asking the Tough Questions," in which I
interviewed four out of five of the "Jersey girls," the 9/11 widows who
spearheaded the drive to form the 9/11 Commission. In that article, Lorie
van Auken calls the 9/11 Commission Report a "pathetic excuse of a report,"
in which "seventy percent of our questions went unanswered." Widow Monica
Gabrielle had this to say: "Addressing all these unanswered questions out
there is about more than simply trying to quell conspiracy theories. It's
about making sure Americans are safe by revealing the unfettered truth about
the failures. Because you can't make recommendations on distortions,
omissions, and half-truths, which is basically what the 9/11 Commission
did." As president, would you be in favor of reopening investigation into
the 9/11 attacks?

Congressman Ron Paul: If the 9/11 families aren't satisfied with the results
of the 9/11 Commission, than neither am I. I'm in favor of an independant
investigation, provided costs are kept in check.

Muckraker Report: As someone who uses the Internet as a primary source of
information, I care a lot about net neutrality. As President, what would
you do to protect free speech on the Internet?

Congressman Ron Paul: I have the strongest record in Congress of opposing
taxing or regulating the Internet in any way. As president, I would work
with lawmakers to make sure no laws were passed inhibiting the right of
Americans to communicate and do business freely.

Muckraker Report: I think most Americans would agree that the Bush years
have seen some of the worst government corruption in American history. The
time-honored means to heal a divided nation is to grant unconditional
amnesty, so that anyone who may have committed crimes under executive
privilege can come forward and be protected under the law. If you were
president, would you consider taking such an action?

Congressman Ron Paul: Yes, granted we were able to take a close look at the
specifics of each case.

Muckraker Report: Finally, "republicanism" as a political philosophy and a
form of government stretches all the way back to ancient Rome. Is there a
particular tradition of republicanism that you identify with?

Congressman Ron Paul: Naturally, the tradition I aspire to is the tradition
of the Founders, who in the eighteenth century established a Constitutional
Republic that has today degenerated into a bureaucratic welfare state. More
recently, however, I've stated in the debates that I uphold the old "Mr.
Republican" tradition of Robert A. Taft, both in Congress and in the
presidential race. This involves limited government, the rule of law, and a
foreign policy of non-intervention, traditional Republican positions for the
last 100 years.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider donating $1 or more to the
Your donations keep the Muckraker Report subscription free!

Repeal the REAL ID Act

Repeal the REAL ID Act

Dear friend, is asking Congress to repeal the REAL ID Act. This law imposes a national identification system on the American people for the first time. Please join us in asking Congress to repeal the REAL ID Act. You can send Congress a message saying just this by clicking here:

If you haven't already, you should also ask your representatives to introduce the Read The Bills Act.

Come to to learn more:

Ron Paul on the G4 show

Email services by FreedomBox. Surf the Net at the sound of your voice.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Ron Paul interview on Mancow radio show

Here it is.

Email services by FreedomBox. Surf the Net at the sound of your voice.

[FL4RonPaul] 71 Yr-Old TRUE Florida Hero Shoots 2 Thieves, Kills 1! (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:02:53 -0400
From: Frank Gonzalez <>
To: Frank Gonzalez <>
Subject: [FL4RonPaul] 71 Yr-Old TRUE Florida Hero Shoots 2 Thieves, Kills 1!

BlankMaybe I'm wrong, but I haven't heard this INSPIRATIONAL story being
reported like it SHOULD.

Ask your Democrat friends where they stand on this. Ask them if they defend
this man's natural-born and 2nd Amendment right to pump hot lead into TWO of
society's human roaches to put them permanently out of our miseries.

This is a right that, unfortunately, many in the extreme left of the
Democratic Party want to curtail severely. They don't care that gun control
only makes victims out of would-be heroes like Mr. Lovell.

This TRUE hero didn't cry like a wimp and call 9-1-1 "Dial-A-Prayer". He
didn't wait around like a frightening sheep and run to the police. He took
matters into his own hands in the split seconds he had to take action.
There should be a small parade to celebrate this man's quick thinking.

I defend the ENTIRE Constitution, folks. If you're a Democrat who doesn't,
please don't send me any posts about how Republicans are violating the
Constitution since your own views are no different for your own "pet" issues
either. I loathe hypocrisy.

If you are one of these scoff-Constitutionists, also consider skipping the
4th of July celebration coming up. You see, that's the day that you're
supposedly celebrating the day that fed-up Americans took up rifles to
slaughter their government oppressors after they first tried redressing
their grievances peacefully. Indeed, they must have been one of the
examples in JFK's mind when he said,

"Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution
You wouldn't want to contradict your views by attending a pro-gun holiday,
would you? You ARE philosophically consistent, right?

Frank J. Gonzalez
A Ron Paul Democrat for US House (FL-21) in 2008
2006 results here:
Updates & commentary:

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as
necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus
building a wall of separation between church and state."

--founder of the Democratic Party, 3rd President of the United States,
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)


Customer who police say shot Plantation robbers a "Clint Eastwood-type,"
friend says

By Andrew Tran
Posted June 28 2007, 12:48 PM EDT

PLANTATION -- One gunman is dead and another is in critical condition
after they tried to rob a sandwich store and were shot by an armed customer
Wednesday night, authorities said.

Donicio Arrindell, 22, of North Lauderdale, and Fredrick Gadson, 21,
of Fort Lauderdale, entered a Subway restaurant at 1949 N. Pine Island Rd.
and demanded money at gunpoint about 11:17 p.m., said Detective Robert
Rettig, a police spokesman.

They then attempted to rob the lone customer, John Lovell, 71, of
Plantation, by forcing him into the restroom, but Lovell, who was legally
armed, pulled his gun and fired, police said.

Arrindell collapsed at the scene, while a police K9 unit found Gadson
hiding in a hedge in front of a nearby bank at the Jacaranda Square shopping
center, officials said.

Both men were taken to Broward General Medical Center, where Arrindell

Gadson was in critical but stable condition on Thursday, investigators

Police said Lovell appeared to have shot in self-defense.

A man who said he was a friend of Lovell's described him as a "quiet
Clint Eastwood-type you don't want to mess with."

"They just happened to pick on the wrong guy at the wrong time," said
Wesley White of Yulee in north Florida. White said he's known Lovell for 19

Lovell is a former Marine who was a member of the helicopter detail
that transported Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, White said. He also was a
former Pan Am and Delta airline pilot who worked out regularly and was in
good condition, White said.

"He's also one heck of a shot," White, 50, said.

Lovell has no family or children and is retired, White said.

No one answered the door at Lovell's two-story townhome Thursday, and
attempts to reach him by phone were unsuccessful. Reporters and TV cameras
were camped out in front of the residence hoping for an interview.

Charges are pending against the surviving suspect, Rettig said. Lovell
is not expected to be charged, the spokesman said.

Police have found a handgun used by one of the suspects, Rettig said.

imigration bill defeated!

Read Message
Downsizer Dispatch
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
Subject: Victory!
The immigration bill is dead. It fell short by 14 votes. Better yet,
the whole issue has become so controversial, in so many different ways,
that no further action on immigration is expected any time soon.
Fox News has reported that the Senate phone system crashed yesterday,
from so many calls coming in.
We call this overwhelming, inescapable, resistance numbing pressure!
But the media, as usual, is getting the story wrong. The professional
reporting class seems unable to contain more than one idea or fact in
their heads at any given time, so they're all reporting that the bill's
defeat was due to its supposed amnesty provisions.
It is to laugh.
The truth is that nearly everyone, on all sides of the issue, opposed
this bill, for every reason imaginable.
The truth is that hundreds of groups like were
organizing opposition to this legislation for many different reasons.
And one of the biggest objections was the REAL ID provisions.
Congratulations to you for the role you played in killing this horrible
bill. Now, we have a prediction to make . . .
Increasingly, this is how the United States is going to be governed.
Congress will propose, but the people will dispose, by exerting
overwhelming, inescapable, resistance numbing pressure.
The Internet has made this possible, just as printing made the
Reformation and the Enlightenment possible, and TV enabled the civil
rights movement.
This Big Change will mostly mean that Congress will do less, because
there will usually be vast interlocking groups of opposition ready to
fight, often for conflicting reasons, but usually with the same result
-- to say and impose a giant NO on Congressional schemes.
The pressure of the people will become the ultimate check and balance
on state expansionism.
This is the future.
And we have another prediction to make . . .
The era of partisan politics and over-sized political personalities is
coming to an end. Parties and personalities will matter less and less,
while public opinion on individual issues and bills will matter more and more.
Many people will continue to have partisan loyalties, and many more
will root for one candidate or another, for the same reason people love
sports. But this contest of labels and names will matter less and less.
It will increasingly become a "sound and fury signifying nothing."
Groups like DownsizeDC,org are the future. Our strategy is the main chance.
Do you want to win? Then this is the way to do it. And frankly, we see
zero evidence that there is any other way to do it.
But there's something else involved here. If you look deeply at the
public opinion polls on various issues you will see that most people
want smaller government on most issues most of the time. We call this
the Great Downsize DC Consensus. But . . .
You wouldn't know about this Consensus from watching the news, because
the journalistic obsession with the sports reporting of partisan
politics ignores this point.
Likewise, the rigged partisan division into two Big Government parties,
and two Big Government philosophical groupings, leaves the small
government consensus disenfranchised, un-represented, and completely invisible.
Partisan politics isn't the solution. Partisan politics is the problem! isn't a political party. It's a way to recruit and
organize the Downsize DC Consensus free from the barriers of primitive
partisan tribalism. It can also be, as our recruiting and organizing
gains critical mass, a way to make the smaller government consensus
VISIBLE for the first time.
We don't think it is a matter of "if this will happen," we think it is
a matter of "when?"
After all, is the future.
Yet part of the answer to the "when" question is up to you.
June has been one of our best months so far. We've recruited more than
800 new Downsizers, and sent more than 40,000 messages to Congress,
plus countless phone calls. Now all we have to do is pay for it. Please
help us make budget for June. We are very close.
A generous anonymous donor has pledged $1,500 for this purpose. But in
order to get that $1,500 we must raise another $1,500 from other
donors. We are oh so close. If you can contribute today your
contribution will be WORTH TWICE AS MUCH. Plus . . .
We'll mail a "9/11: Press for Truth" DVD to your home. Here's how . . .
If you're an existing monthly credit card pledger in good standing as
of June 15, 2007, all you have to do is increase your monthly pledge by
at least $1, and we'll send one to you.
If you're NOT an EXISTING monthly credit card pledger then you can
start a monthly credit card pledge of at least $6, or make a one-time
credit card donation of $35 or more, and we'll send you the DVD.
(Sorry, for technical reasons we cannot make this offer for PayPal
pledges or donations).
Please help us make budget. You can make your contribution here.
Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.
Jim Babka
President, Inc.
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation
CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project is sponsored by, Inc. -- a
non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual
liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.
You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business
associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items
herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the
subscription instructions above are included.

Email services by FreedomBox. Surf the Net at the sound of your voice.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

=?X-UNKNOWN?Q?=5BFL4RonPaul=5D_Gov't-Vaccinated_Kids_2=BD_Times?= =?X-UNKNOWN?Q?_More_Neurological_Disorders_=28fwd=29?=

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:52:32 -0400
From: Frank Gonzalez <>
To: Frank Gonzalez <>
Subject: [FL4RonPaul] Gov't-Vaccinated Kids 2½ Times More Neurological Disorders

BlankI'm glad to say that a Democrat on my list sent this to me.

Frank J. Gonzalez
A Ron Paul Democrat for US House (FL-21) in 2008
2006 results here:
Updates & commentary:

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as
necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus
building a wall of separation between church and state."

--founder of the Democratic Party, 3rd President of the United States,
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)


Nice example of how government controlled health care (forced care in this
context) adds to illness and cost (but reaps profits for pharma companies).
Nice to see Ron Paul joining with a couple Democrats to try to force the
government to do research to protect America's children from government
mandated abuse.

Vaccinated Children Two and a Half Times More Likely to Have Neurological
Disorders Like ADHD and Autism, New Survey in California and Oregon Finds

Earth Times | June 27, 2007

As the first trial in Vaccine Court explores the relationship between
vaccines and autism, a new survey released today indicates a strong
correlation between rates of neurological disorders, such as ADHD and
autism, and childhood vaccinations.

The survey, commissioned by Generation Rescue, compared vaccinated and
unvaccinated children in nine counties in Oregon and California. Among more
than 9,000 boys age 4-17, the survey found vaccinated boys were two and a
half times (155%) more likely to have neurological disorders compared to
their unvaccinated peers. Vaccinated boys were 224% more likely to have
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and 61% more likely to have

For older vaccinated boys in the 11-17 age bracket, the results were even
more pronounced. Vaccinated boys were 158% more likely to have a
neurological disorder, 317% more likely to have ADHD, and 112% more likely
to have autism. Complete survey results are available at

Generation Rescue commissioned the phone survey. Data was gathered by
SurveyUSA, a national market research firm, which surveyed parents by phone
on more than 17,000 children, ages 4-17, in five counties in California (San
Diego, Sonoma, Orange, Sacramento, and Marin) and four counties in Oregon
(Multnomah, Marion, Jackson, and Lane).

The survey asked parents whether their child had been vaccinated, and
whether that child had one or more of the following diagnoses: Attention
Deficit Disorder (ADD), ADHD, Asperger's Syndrome, Pervasive Development
Disorder -- Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS), or Autism. The phone survey
was chosen to mirror the methodology the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
uses to establish national prevalence for neurological disorders in their
national phone survey.

Timed to the release of the survey results, Generation Rescue also ran
full-page advertisements in Washington's Roll Call, The Oregonian, and The
Orange County Register today. The ad compares the 36 pediatric vaccines the
CDC recommends today to the 10 recommended in 1983, and asks, "Are We Over-
Vaccinating Our Kids?"

"No one has ever compared prevalence rates of these neurological disorders
between vaccinated and unvaccinated children," said J.B. Handley, co-founder
of Generation Rescue, whose son was diagnosed with autism. "The phone survey
isn't perfect, but these numbers point to the need for a comprehensive
national study to gather this critical information."

In Washington, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) has been advocating for
such a survey. Co-sponsored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Rep. Ron Paul
(R-TX), the "Comprehensive Comparative Study of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated
Population Act of 2006," or H.R. 2832, was introduced on June 22, and would
require the National Institutes of Health to complete this research.

"Generation Rescue's study is impressive and forcefully raises some serious
questions about the relationship between vaccines and autism. What is
ultimately needed to resolve this issue one way or the other is a
comprehensive national study of vaccinated and unvaccinated children," said
Congresswoman Maloney. "The parents behind Generation Rescue only want
information. These parents deserve more than road blocks, they deserve
answers. We can and should move forward in search of those answers. That's
why I have introduced a common sense bill that would require the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct a comprehensive, comparative study on
the possible link between autism and thimerosal."

>From 1983 to 2007, autism rates have climbed from 1 in 10,000 children to 1
in 150 children, a growth rate of 6,000% (boys are significantly more
affected by neurological disorders, accounting for approximately 80% of all
cases). ADHD currently affects 1 in 13 children. In the same period, the
CDC's recommended vaccine schedule more than tripled. The simmering debate
over the cause of childhood neurological disorders shows no sign of cooling,
but no study had ever been done to look at unvaccinated children.

Lisa Handley, co-founder of Generation Rescue, adds, "Everyone working with
autism wants to identify the cause so we can focus on treatment and
prevention. A national study like HR 5940 could help end this debate and
focus all of our resources on helping our kids. Its time has come, and we
hope Congress will choose to put our children first."

Ed Brown Supports Will Be Rounded Up

According to,

the Department of Justice has announced that Ed Brown supporters will
be rounded up. However, they weren't specific about what constitutes
supporters. I admire the Browns for standing up to the corrupt agency
that we call the Internal Revenue Service. Since I just made that
statement, will I be arrested? What about talk shows such as Free Talk
Live? I actually found out about the Browns from listening to that
show. Will the hosts of that show be arrested? If so, on what charge?

Email services by FreedomBox. Surf the Net at the sound of your voice.

[FL4RonPaul] State Punishes Old Couple Using Vegetable Oil Fuel (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:49:37 -0400
From: Frank Gonzalez <>
To: Frank Gonzalez <>
Subject: [FL4RonPaul] State Punishes Old Couple Using Vegetable Oil Fuel

BlankIn this story the state shows its ugly face once more.

Think about these two state government losers, already overpaid with
taxpayer-extorted tax dollars and benefits, coming to a private home to
violate the individual rights of an old couple on a fixed income who were
hurting NO ONE by innovating ways to save money on their fuel costs.

George Washington knew that government is FORCE, not eloquence or reason.
The ONLY thing that can keep government in its cage, where it belongs, is
the Constitution on the federal level.

Ron Paul and I are at least two federal-level candidates who understand this
fundamental principle against an ocean of state apologists who will say just
enough to sway the easily impressionable masses who don't think critically.

Where were these opportunistic legislators BEFORE this couple suffered the
trauma of having to deal with these thugs?

Frank J. Gonzalez
A Ron Paul Democrat for US House (FL-21) in 2008
2006 results here:
Updates & commentary:

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as
necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus
building a wall of separation between church and state."

--founder of the Democratic Party, 3rd President of the United States,
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)


Updated: Thursday, March 1, 2007 8:24 AM CST

State makes big fuss over local couple's vegetable oil car fuel

By HUEY FREEMAN - H&R Staff Writer
DECATUR - David and Eileen Wetzel don't get going in the morning quite
as early as they used to.

So David Wetzel, 79, was surprised to hear a knock on the door at
their eastside home while he was still getting dressed.

Two men in suits were standing on his porch.

"They showed me their badges and said they were from the Illinois
Department of Revenue," Wetzel said. "I said, 'Come in.' Maybe I shouldn't

Gary May introduced himself as a special agent. The other man, John
Egan, was introduced as his colleague. May gave the Wetzels his card,
stating that he is the senior agent in the bureau of criminal

"I was afraid," Eileen Wetzel said. "I came out of the bathroom. I
thought: Good God, we paid our taxes. The check didn't bounce."

The agents informed the Wetzels that they were interested in their
car, a 1986 Volkswagen Golf, that David Wetzel converted to run primarily
from vegetable oil but also partly on diesel.

Wetzel uses recycled vegetable oil, which he picks up weekly from an
organization that uses it for frying food at its dining facility.

"They told me I am required to have a license and am obligated to pay
a motor fuel tax," David Wetzel recalled. "Mr. May also told me the tax
would be retroactive."

Since the initial visit by the agents on Jan. 4, the Wetzels have been
involved in a struggle with the Illinois Department of Revenue. The couple,
who live on a fixed budget, have been asked to post a $2,500 bond and
threatened with felony charges.

State legislators have rallied to help the Wetzels.

State Sen. Frank Watson, R-Greenville, introduced Senate Bill 267,
which would curtail government interference regarding alternative fuels,
such as vegetable oil. A public hearing on the bill will be at 1 p.m. today
in Room 400 of the state Capitol.

"I would agree that the bond is not acceptable, $2,500 bond," Watson
said, adding that David Wetzel should be commended for his innovative
efforts. "(His car) gets 46 miles per gallon running on vegetable oil. We
all should be thinking about doing without gasoline if we're trying to end
foreign dependency.

"I think it's inappropriate of state dollars to send two people to Mr.
Wetzel's home to do this. They could have done with a more friendly
approach. It could have been done on the phone. To use an intimidation
factor on this - who is he harming? Two revenue agents. You'd think there's
a better use of their time," Watson said.

The Wetzels, who plan to speak at a Senate hearing in Springfield
today, recalled how their struggle with the revenue department unfolded.

According to the Wetzels, May told them during his Jan. 4 visit that
they would have to pay taxes at either the gasoline rate of 19½ cents per
gallon or the diesel rate of 21½ cents per gallon.

A retired research chemist and food plant manager, Wetzel produced
records showing he has used 1,134.6 gallons of vegetable oil from 2002 to
2006. At the higher rate, the tax bill would come to $244.24.

"That averages out to $4.07 a month," Wetzel noted, adding he is
willing to pay that bill.

But the Wetzels would discover that the state had more complicated and
costly requirements for them to continue to use their "veggie mobile."

David Wetzel was told to contact a revenue official and apply for a
license as a "special fuel supplier" and "receiver." After completing a
complicated application form designed for businesses, David Wetzel was sent
a letter directing him to send in a $2,500 bond.

Eileen Wetzel, a former teaching assistant, calculated that the bond,
designed to ensure that their "business" pays its taxes, would cover the
next 51 years at their present usage rate.

A couple of weeks later, David Wetzel received another letter from the
revenue department, stating that he "must immediately stop operating as a
special fuel supplier and receiver until you receive special fuel supplier
and receiver licenses."

This threatening letter stated that acting as a supplier and receiver
without a license is a Class 3 felony. This class of felonies carries a
penalty of up to five years in prison.

On the department of revenue's Web site, David Wetzel discovered that
the definition of special fuel supplier includes someone who operates a
plant with an "active bulk storage capacity of not less than 30,000
gallons." Wetzel also did not fit the definition of a receiver, described as
a person who produces, distributes or transports fuel into the state. So
Wetzel withdrew his application to become a supplier and receiver.

Mike Klemens, spokesman for the department of revenue, explained that
Wetzel has to register as a supplier because the law states that is the only
way he can pay motor fuel tax.

But what if he is not, in fact, a supplier? Then would he instead be
exempt from paying the tax?

"We are in the process of creating a way to simplify the registration
process and self-assess the tax," Klemens said, adding that a rule change
may be in place by spring.

David Wetzel wonders why hybrid cars, which rely on electricity and
gasoline, are not taxed for the portion of travel when they are running on
electrical power. He said he wants to be treated equally by the law.

David Wetzel, who has been exhibiting his car at energy fairs and
universities, views state policies as contradicting stated government aims.

"You hear the president saying we need to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil," Wetzel said. "You hear the governor saying that."

State Rep. Bob Flider, D-Mount Zion, also plans to support legislation
favoring alternative fuels.

"I'm disappointed that the Illinois Department of Revenue would go
after Mr. Wetzel," Flider said. "I don't think it is a situation that merits
him being licensed and paying fees.

"The people at the department of revenue apparently feel they need to
regulate him in some way. We want to make sure that he is as free as he can
be to use vegetable oil. He's an example of ingenuity. Instead of being
whacked on the head, he should be encouraged."

Huey Freeman can be reached at or 421-6985.

Ryan Mann has sent you: Paris: Tearing Up The Script

Hi, check out this page:

Paris: Tearing Up The Script

It's about time that a reporter refuses to treat Paris Hilton like she's god. What has Paris Hilton done to bring America closer to liberty or help poor people?

Ryan Mann

[FL4RonPaul] Florida Man Arrested for POINTING FINGER @ Cop "Hero"! (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:52:49 -0400
From: Frank Gonzalez <>
To: Frank Gonzalez <>
Subject: [FL4RonPaul] Florida Man Arrested for POINTING FINGER @ Cop "Hero"!

BlankRead this "hero's" arrogance in her own words:
"I'm a police officer, I can do what I want."
Remember, people, UNIONS defend these thugs. UNIONS sponsor the annual
Democratic Party Labor Day Picnic here in Miami, but only after they gave
over $200,000 to my Republican opponent during his previous 14 years, even
though there was a so-called "real" Democrat in 1998 who unions left
flapping in the wind.

Hopefully by now you see the extreme stupidity of supporting such
collectives, especially when they are clamoring for more and more of your
individual liberties.

We can't do ANYTHING in this "free" country anymore, and its the
responsibility of each and every one of you to demand better.

Remember this when you listen to the Democratic Party candidates for
President. This is no less dangerous than large corporations funding
Republican campaigns.

Frank J. Gonzalez
A Ron Paul Democrat for US House (FL-21) in 2008
2006 results here:
Updates & commentary:

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as
necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus
building a wall of separation between church and state."

--founder of the Democratic Party, 3rd President of the United States,
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)


Bradenton man arrested for pointing finger

Posted on Tuesday May 01, 2007 by Amanda Stanzilis


A Bradenton man is facing assault charges after police say he pointed his
finger and yelled at an off-duty sheriff's deputy

Two things ray miller says you should know about him. One, he hates Muscovy

"Our parking garage is littered with their feces. It's like little bombs
through there," and two, he's a law-abiding citizen.

He has no criminal record at least until now.

Miller says it started when he and his wife saw someone feeding the ducks.
They asked the woman to stop, but she ignored them. When she finally
replied, miller says she told him "I'm a police officer, I can do what I

The woman was Manatee County Sheriff's Deputy Kym Bennett. Bennett and
Miller argued for a few minutes about the ducks, and about whether deputy
Bennett was trespassing on the property since she didn't live in the condos

Miller says his wife decided to call the Bradenton Police department to ask
them for a legal opinion on what they could do about the situation. But when
police arrived, miller was in for a surprise.

deputy Bennett told police that miller had been aggressive, and had pointed
his finger at her. Bennet pressed assault charges. Miller was arrested and
taken to jail.

ABC 7 spoke with an attorney about this case. Mark Lipinski told us "I've
never seen a case like this, don't know anybody who's seen a case like this.
I've asked all the attorneys in the area, they've never heard of anything
like this."

Lipinski says he understands why miller is crying foul. He says, "next time
you want to shake your finger at somebody, you better think twice."

Miller thinks the whole thing is absurd. He will be arraigned in May 29th.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

[FL4RonPaul] Tom Tancredo and Iowa (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:18:12 -0400
From: Bryan Morton <>
To: FL4RonPaul yahoogroup <>
Subject: [FL4RonPaul] Tom Tancredo and Iowa

We should thank Tom and urge the other honorable candidates to follow suit.

Ron Paul interviewed on Ed Schultz

This is a little old, but I just found it. I thought this was a good
interview considering that it is a liberal radio show.


Email services by FreedomBox. Surf the Net at the sound of your voice.

[FL4RonPaul] Dollar Hegemony, Oil and War (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:22:05 -0400
From: Bryan Morton <>
"RonPaulforPresident@yahoog" <>,, Phil Studenberg <>,
Karl Dickey <>,,
Chuckles <>,
FL4RonPaul yahoogroup <>,
Conner <>, Doug Newman <>,
"Christian_libertarians@Yahoo" <>,
Bob Graham <>
Subject: [FL4RonPaul] Dollar Hegemony, Oil and War

For some this may be old news, but this speech, given by Ron Paul on the House floor on February, 15 of '06, is a very informative piece which deserves dissemination.


Before the U.S. House of Representatives

February 15, 2006

The End of Dollar Hegemony

A hundred years ago it was called "dollar diplomacy." After World War II, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, that policy evolved into "dollar hegemony." But after all these many years of great success, our dollar dominance is coming to an end.

It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules. In earlier times it was readily accepted that fair and honest trade required an exchange for something of real value.

First it was simply barter of goods. Then it was discovered that gold held a universal attraction, and was a convenient substitute for more cumbersome barter transactions. Not only did gold facilitate exchange of goods and services, it served as a store of value for those who wanted to save for a rainy day.

Though money developed naturally in the marketplace, as governments grew in power they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold, but in time governments learned to outspend their revenues. New or higher taxes always incurred the disapproval of the people, so it wasn't long before Kings and Caesars learned how to inflate their currencies by reducing the amount of gold in each coin-- always hoping their subjects wouldn't discover the fraud. But the people always did, and they strenuously objected.

This helped pressure leaders to seek more gold by conquering other nations. The people became accustomed to living beyond their means, and enjoyed the circuses and bread. Financing extravagances by conquering foreign lands seemed a logical alternative to working harder and producing more. Besides, conquering nations not only brought home gold, they brought home slaves as well. Taxing the people in conquered territories also provided an incentive to build empires. This system of government worked well for a while, but the moral decline of the people led to an unwillingness to produce for themselves. There was a limit to the number of countries that could be sacked for their wealth, and this always brought empires to an end. When gold no longer could be obtained, their military might crumbled. In those days those who held the gold truly wrote the rules and lived well.

That general rule has held fast throughout the ages. When gold was used, and the rules protected honest commerce, productive nations thrived. Whenever wealthy nations-- those with powerful armies and gold-- strived only for empire and easy fortunes to support welfare at home, those nations failed.

Today the principles are the same, but the process is quite different. Gold no longer is the currency of the realm; paper is. The truth now is: "He who prints the money makes the rules"-- at least for the time being. Although gold is not used, the goals are the same: compel foreign countries to produce and subsidize the country with military superiority and control over the monetary printing presses.

Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency. The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation's people-- just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare.

The pressure at home to inflate the currency comes from the corporate welfare recipients, as well as those who demand handouts as compensation for their needs and perceived injuries by others. In both cases personal responsibility for one's actions is rejected.

When paper money is rejected, or when gold runs out, wealth and political stability are lost. The country then must go from living beyond its means to living beneath its means, until the economic and political systems adjust to the new rules-- rules no longer written by those who ran the now defunct printing press.

"Dollar Diplomacy," a policy instituted by William Howard Taft and his Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, was designed to enhance U.S. commercial investments in Latin America and the Far East. McKinley concocted a war against Spain in 1898, and (Teddy) Roosevelt's corollary to the Monroe Doctrine preceded Taft's aggressive approach to using the U.S. dollar and diplomatic influence to secure U.S. investments abroad. This earned the popular title of "Dollar Diplomacy." The significance of Roosevelt's change was that our intervention now could be justified by the mere "appearance" that a country of interest to us was politically or fiscally vulnerable to European control. Not only did we claim a right, but even an official U.S. government "obligation" to protect our commercial interests from Europeans.

This new policy came on the heels of the "gunboat" diplomacy of the late 19th century, and it meant we could buy influence before resorting to the threat of force. By the time the "dollar diplomacy" of William Howard Taft was clearly articulated, the seeds of American empire were planted. And they were destined to grow in the fertile political soil of a country that lost its love and respect for the republic bequeathed to us by the authors of the Constitution. And indeed they did. It wasn't too long before dollar "diplomacy" became dollar "hegemony" in the second half of the 20th century.

This transition only could have occurred with a dramatic change in monetary policy and the nature of the dollar itself.

Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Between then and 1971 the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913 and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress-- while benefiting the special interests that influence government.

Dollar dominance got a huge boost after World War II. We were spared the destruction that so many other nations suffered, and our coffers were filled with the world's gold. But the world chose not to return to the discipline of the gold standard, and the politicians applauded. Printing money to pay the bills was a lot more popular than taxing or restraining unnecessary spending. In spite of the short-term benefits, imbalances were institutionalized for decades to come.

The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement solidified the dollar as the preeminent world reserve currency, replacing the British pound. Due to our political and military muscle, and because we had a huge amount of physical gold, the world readily accepted our dollar (defined as 1/35th of an ounce of gold) as the world's reserve currency. The dollar was said to be "as good as gold," and convertible to all foreign central banks at that rate. For American citizens, however, it remained illegal to own. This was a gold-exchange standard that from inception was doomed to fail.

The U.S. did exactly what many predicted she would do. She printed more dollars for which there was no gold backing. But the world was content to accept those dollars for more than 25 years with little question-- until the French and others in the late 1960s demanded we fulfill our promise to pay one ounce of gold for each $35 they delivered to the U.S. Treasury. This resulted in a huge gold drain that brought an end to a very poorly devised pseudo-gold standard.

It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency and everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.

Amazingly, a new system was devised which allowed the U.S. to operate the printing presses for the world reserve currency with no restraints placed on it-- not even a pretense of gold convertibility, none whatsoever! Though the new policy was even more deeply flawed, it nevertheless opened the door for dollar hegemony to spread.

Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence "backed" the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.

This post-Bretton Woods system was much more fragile than the system that existed between 1945 and 1971. Though the dollar/oil arrangement was helpful, it was not nearly as stable as the pseudo gold standard under Bretton Woods. It certainly was less stable than the gold standard of the late 19th century.

During the 1970s the dollar nearly collapsed, as oil prices surged and gold skyrocketed to $800 an ounce. By 1979 interest rates of 21% were required to rescue the system. The pressure on the dollar in the 1970s, in spite of the benefits accrued to it, reflected reckless budget deficits and monetary inflation during the 1960s. The markets were not fooled by LBJ's claim that we could afford both "guns and butter."

Once again the dollar was rescued, and this ushered in the age of true dollar hegemony lasting from the early 1980s to the present. With tremendous cooperation coming from the central banks and international commercial banks, the dollar was accepted as if it were gold.

Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, on several occasions before the House Banking Committee, answered my challenges to him about his previously held favorable views on gold by claiming that he and other central bankers had gotten paper money-- i.e. the dollar system-- to respond as if it were gold. Each time I strongly disagreed, and pointed out that if they had achieved such a feat they would have defied centuries of economic history regarding the need for money to be something of real value. He smugly and confidently concurred with this.

In recent years central banks and various financial institutions, all with vested interests in maintaining a workable fiat dollar standard, were not secretive about selling and loaning large amounts of gold to the market even while decreasing gold prices raised serious questions about the wisdom of such a policy. They never admitted to gold price fixing, but the evidence is abundant that they believed if the gold price fell it would convey a sense of confidence to the market, confidence that they indeed had achieved amazing success in turning paper into gold.

Increasing gold prices historically are viewed as an indicator of distrust in paper currency. This recent effort was not a whole lot different than the U.S. Treasury selling gold at $35 an ounce in the 1960s, in an attempt to convince the world the dollar was sound and as good as gold. Even during the Depression, one of Roosevelt's first acts was to remove free market gold pricing as an indication of a flawed monetary system by making it illegal for American citizens to own gold. Economic law eventually limited that effort, as it did in the early 1970s when our Treasury and the IMF tried to fix the price of gold by dumping tons into the market to dampen the enthusiasm of those seeking a safe haven for a falling dollar after gold ownership was re-legalized.

Once again the effort between 1980 and 2000 to fool the market as to the true value of the dollar proved unsuccessful. In the past 5 years the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by more than 50%. You just can't fool all the people all the time, even with the power of the mighty printing press and money creating system of the Federal Reserve.

Even with all the shortcomings of the fiat monetary system, dollar influence thrived. The results seemed beneficial, but gross distortions built into the system remained. And true to form, Washington politicians are only too anxious to solve the problems cropping up with window dressing, while failing to understand and deal with the underlying flawed policy. Protectionism, fixing exchange rates, punitive tariffs, politically motivated sanctions, corporate subsidies, international trade management, price controls, interest rate and wage controls, super-nationalist sentiments, threats of force, and even war are resorted to-all to solve the problems artificially created by deeply flawed monetary and economic systems.

In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case that's the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead. This is a benefit many in Congress fail to recognize, as they bash China for maintaining a positive trade balance with us. But this leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, as we become more dependent on others and less self-sufficient. Foreign countries accumulate our dollars due to their high savings rates, and graciously loan them back to us at low interest rates to finance our excessive consumption.

It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars-- due to their depreciation-- will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.

The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the preeminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year. Last year alone M3 increased over $700 billion.

The artificial demand for our dollar, along with our military might, places us in the unique position to "rule" the world without productive work or savings, and without limits on consumer spending or deficits. The problem is, it can't last.

Price inflation is raising its ugly head, and the NASDAQ bubble-- generated by easy money-- has burst. The housing bubble likewise created is deflating. Gold prices have doubled, and federal spending is out of sight with zero political will to rein it in. The trade deficit last year was over $728 billion. A $2 trillion war is raging, and plans are being laid to expand the war into Iran and possibly Syria. The only restraining force will be the world's rejection of the dollar. It's bound to come and create conditions worse than 1979-1980, which required 21% interest rates to correct. But everything possible will be done to protect the dollar in the meantime. We have a shared interest with those who hold our dollars to keep the whole charade going.

Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed, said that gold prices were up because of concern about terrorism, and not because of monetary concerns or because he created too many dollars during his tenure. Gold has to be discredited and the dollar propped up. Even when the dollar comes under serious attack by market forces, the central banks and the IMF surely will do everything conceivable to soak up the dollars in hope of restoring stability. Eventually they will fail.

Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged-as it already has been.

In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein-- though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O'Neill.

It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.

In 2001, Venezuela's ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.

After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world's reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro was reversed. These events may well have played a significant role in maintaining dollar dominance.

It's become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez, and was embarrassed by its failure. The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported.

Now, a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the "axis of evil," has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what, the oil sales will be priced Euros, not dollars.

Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeqh, and install the authoritarian Shah, who was friendly to the U.S. The Iranians were still fuming over this when the hostages were seized in 1979. Our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in the early 1980s did not help matters, and obviously did not do much for our relationship with Saddam Hussein. The administration announcement in 2001 that Iran was part of the axis of evil didn't do much to improve the diplomatic relationship between our two countries. Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, doesn't seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran. With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam, and this recent history, there's little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us. But that didn't stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she's made plans for pricing oil in Euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.

It's not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq, nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's connection to 9/11, were false. The dollar's importance is obvious, but this does not diminish the influence of the distinct plans laid out years ago by the neo-conservatives to remake the Middle East. Israel's influence, as well as that of the Christian Zionists, likewise played a role in prosecuting this war. Protecting "our" oil supplies has influenced our Middle East policy for decades.

But the truth is that paying the bills for this aggressive intervention is impossible the old fashioned way, with more taxes, more savings, and more production by the American people. Much of the expense of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 was shouldered by many of our willing allies. That's not so today. Now, more than ever, the dollar hegemony-- it's dominance as the world reserve currency-- is required to finance our huge war expenditures. This $2 trillion never-ending war must be paid for, one way or another. Dollar hegemony provides the vehicle to do just that.

For the most part the true victims aren't aware of how they pay the bills. The license to create money out of thin air allows the bills to be paid through price inflation. American citizens, as well as average citizens of Japan, China, and other countries suffer from price inflation, which represents the "tax" that pays the bills for our military adventures. That is until the fraud is discovered, and the foreign producers decide not to take dollars nor hold them very long in payment for their goods. Everything possible is done to prevent the fraud of the monetary system from being exposed to the masses who suffer from it. If oil markets replace dollars with Euros, it would in time curtail our ability to continue to print, without restraint, the world's reserve currency.

It is an unbelievable benefit to us to import valuable goods and export depreciating dollars. The exporting countries have become addicted to our purchases for their economic growth. This dependency makes them allies in continuing the fraud, and their participation keeps the dollar's value artificially high. If this system were workable long term, American citizens would never have to work again. We too could enjoy "bread and circuses" just as the Romans did, but their gold finally ran out and the inability of Rome to continue to plunder conquered nations brought an end to her empire.

The same thing will happen to us if we don't change our ways. Though we don't occupy foreign countries to directly plunder, we nevertheless have spread our troops across 130 nations of the world. Our intense effort to spread our power in the oil-rich Middle East is not a coincidence. But unlike the old days, we don't declare direct ownership of the natural resources-- we just insist that we can buy what we want and pay for it with our paper money. Any country that challenges our authority does so at great risk.

Once again Congress has bought into the war propaganda against Iran, just as it did against Iraq. Arguments are now made for attacking Iran economically, and militarily if necessary. These arguments are all based on the same false reasons given for the ill-fated and costly occupation of Iraq.

Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire (DOD budget $450 billion) plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the "backing" of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today's "gold." This is why countries that challenge the system-- like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela-- become targets of our plans for regime change.

Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become.

But real threats come from our political adversaries who are incapable of confronting us militarily, yet are not bashful about confronting us economically. That's why we see the new challenge from Iran being taken so seriously. The urgent arguments about Iran posing a military threat to the security of the United States are no more plausible than the false charges levied against Iraq. Yet there is no effort to resist this march to confrontation by those who grandstand for political reasons against the Iraq war.

It seems that the people and Congress are easily persuaded by the jingoism of the preemptive war promoters. It's only after the cost in human life and dollars are tallied up that the people object to unwise militarism.

The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large majority of American people, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran.

But then again, our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on the Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11.

Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.

And once again there's this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.

Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.

Read the Bills Act Coalition Add to Technorati Favorites