I love listening to Obama speak. The man is charismatic beyond belief. I think he would do an incredible job at doing what Americans have somehow come to believe a President is supposed to do.
Obama has incredible presence and captivating charm. He is incredible at conveying his vision. But in my opinion, if he wins the Presidency it won't be because of these gifts. Nor will it be because he awakened the passions of young voters. And it won't be because he united America; It will be for one reason and one reason only: Americans have no idea what a President is supposed to do. And if you actually listen to the words he so eloquently speaks, neither does he.
But this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong. If I am, and you help me see the error of my ways; I will vote for your candidate this November. My request is outlined below.
If you support Barack Obama, or any other candidate for that matter I have a question first and then your opportunity to win a vote for your candidate.
The question is this:
What do you think the President's Job is and what illustrates your candidate has the best ability to do this job? Comment below or email me if you're shy.
Here's the Opportunity:
If you can click and read the actual Job Description for President of The United States, and convince me that the "best of your candidate's ablity" (you'll understand why that's in quotes when you read the link) is greater than Ron Paul's I will publicly pledge my vote to your candidate and post a picture of my voting for said candidate on this website on or before November 5th, 2008.
Winning a vote should never be easier if your candidate really is the best one for the job. If you can rise to the challenge, I have a feeling that you wouldn't just get my vote but that of many other Ron Paul supporters as well. Most of us already agree with Obama's stated position on the war (or at least the fact that we shouldn't have started it to begin with), so if you do your best, enlist your friends in this effort, and "change" my mind, I and others like me may help you elect your candidate of "change."
Your Fellow American,
John Armstrong
P.S. Below is the text from another article about the importance of keeping this Oath of Office and Protecting the Constitution since the one thing that truly "Unites" Americans is our Freedom, and the Constitution protects it. I welcome any comments on this as well.
Like this Article? Thumb it.
Want to spread it? Social Bookmark it or Forward it to friends.
As always, unlike the NFL, the author gives you express permission to give accounts of rebroadcast, retransmit, or do anything else you'd like with it to promote the Restoration of our Republic.
strongarmedjohn@yahoo.com
How often have you heard someone say, "I don't really pay attention to politics" and then follow it up with a meager "but I probably should"? The reason often given for not knowing more is that it is just "too complicated." And there is a reason it is complicated:
People vote based on their personal beliefs.
If you believe in the right of a woman to choose, you vote Democrat.
If you believe in the right of an unborn child to live, you vote Republican.
If you believe that the government should provide universal healthcare, you vote Democrat.
If you believe that spreading democracy is the best way to protect us from terrorists, you vote Republican.
If you believe that gay people and minorities have collective rights, you vote Democrat.
If you believe that Christians have collective rights, you vote Republican.
How often have you heard that as an educated voter you should study the issues and then vote for the candidate who most closely shares your beliefs as you on those issues? How many people have told you that they voted for someone because that candidate believes in what the person talking to you believes in?
The paradigm shift that must occur for our country to be what it was intended to be is to stop asking this ridiculous question and start voting on the one and only issue that should matter: which candidate has the best ability to do what they are sworn in to do? I have asked about 50 people over the last week if they knew what it was that an elected federal government official was supposed to do--what they swear they will do--and not surprisingly not a single one so far has known.
Why? Because the discussion for so long has been based on voting based on what you believe, and there are so many different beliefs, that the whole thing has become "complicated." Do you know what these officials are supposed to do? If you do, congratulations, you are probably already voting for the one candidate who stands out above all the rest because of this candidate's proven ability to do it. If you don't, read on, and if you are intelligent you will come to the same decision other people already have.
The reason voting for your beliefs is the wrong way to go about voting is that your candidate's actually following through on his/her campaign commitments may ultimately lead to a future where your beliefs may not matter at all. Huh? Let me explain.
Despite popular belief, the Constitution does not grant us our freedom or rights as American citizens. These "self-evident truths" are part of (depending on your personal beliefs) derived either from your Creator or from natural law. A person born in a place where no government existed would indeed be free, but his freedom would not be protected against another's freedom. It was with this concept in mind that our nation's founders drafted the Constitution. It wasn't to give us freedom, which would necessarily imply that we aren't free unless the government allows us to be; it was to create a government that not only allowed a person to keep his natural state of freedom, so long as it didn't interfere with another's; this by turn protected his freedom against the use of theirs to deprive him of his. Therefore, the government as established by the Constitution was created for one reason: to protect the freedom with which we are all born.
Because the people who created this document had just placed their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" on the line in order to regain this freedom from an oppressive government, they made sure when they wrote it that if we followed the guidelines, no such government could ever exist in our country. It's not that these men were infallible demigods (although they were pretty dang smart), it was that they understood how much freedom cost and how much it was worth. They wanted to make sure that their sacrifice didn't go to waste.
Just as a successful progenitor will create specific rules for the trust he leaves his family, which if followed will ensure their wealth; our founders created a trust for our freedom. And much like the heirs who have little appreciation for the sacrifice of the person who created this wealth for them take what they have for granted and sometimes squander it all by not following the rules; we the people do the same thing when we ignore the rules of the trust fund of freedom left for us by the people who paid for it and set up the rules of that trust.
It is this freedom that allows you as an individual to believe what you choose to believe, to freely express your beliefs as long as doing so does not interfere with other individual's rights to believe what they choose to believe. The founders were also intelligent enough to realize that times and situations would change. That is why the document came complete with easy to read instruction included on how to change it should times demand it. This process is called amending the Constitution, and the change is called, duh, an Amendment. And while changing the Constitution is not complicated, it is not easy.
That is by design. The founders knew from personal experience that the greatest threat to freedom was the government which is why the power of the government is incredibly limited in the Constitution. They realized that every law passed, regardless of how good the intention, could potentially damage the freedom of the individual since the enforcement of that law would require a sacrifice by the people (either in money or personal liberty).
Yet they also knew that there could be an idea or philosophy that came along which would gain the support of enough citizens that they would decide to allow the government to adopt and enforce it as law. This is why free speech is so important. It allows a way for these ideas to be heard and possibly adopted. If enough people think it's a good idea, then the Constitution can be amended. But unless the people decide to allow the government to make such laws by amending the Constitution, the last line of Article 1, Section 8 clearly states that the federal government has no power to do so, and the 10th Amendment further solidifies this.
Unfortunately, most people hated history class. And the Constitution is something they learned about there. Each time the government decides to do something that is a "good idea" based on some "belief of philosophy" in order to solve some problem that pops up, the power of the government increases, and the freedom and rights of the individual decrease. Because most people slept through history class and don't realize how important the Constitution is the government has become incredibly powerful by creating laws in order to solve problems that they have absolutely no right to create to begin with.
What most Americans don't realize is that the Constitution isn't an archaic document that was written for "back then"; it is a Contract between we the people and our government. And we the people dictated the terms of that Contract to give the government its power (the government has no rights--just power which should tell you something). Every time the government decides it wants to do something in the best interest of the people that it isn't allowed to do, it violates that contract.
Think of it like this: If you had a contract with someone to build a house for you, for a set price you would expect to receive exactly what you agreed to for exactly the price agreed upon. If the builder knew that you hadn't read the contract he could give you less; he could also charge you more, and you would never know. This would benefit the builder but it would harm you. Similarly, if the builder just decided that your house would look better with brick instead of vinyl and decided to build it that way although you didn't ask for it, you would be outraged when you were expected to pay for the additions he made without authorization. If the builder decided that you should have a brick house, and explained that to you, and you agreed; you could then make that change--by changing the contract. If you wanted something else added that was important enough to you to give up something for it, you could then go to the builder and ask him to do it (he would likely oblige since he would receive more money) and once again, you would change the contract. But anything done without changing the contract would without question be detrimental to the party giving up something and be exploited by the party that gains something, regardless of the intent. Which brings us back to voting based on your beliefs.
When you vote based on your beliefs instead of voting based on who is most capable of doing the job they swear they will do, you are essentially saying, "I'm okay with having my contract violated as long as the government thinks it's a good idea; since the person I voted for claims to believe what I believe, it probably will be a good idea."
But what happens when your candidate doesn't win? Well then, you blame the other people who voted based on their beliefs for ruining your country. If you are a Republican, you blame FDR's "good idea" called the New Deal for creating the welfare state. If you are a Democrat, you blame the Republican's "good idea" of democratizing the Middle East for the war in Iraq. The thing both of these "good ideas" have in common is that there is absolutely nothing in the Contract that allows them to begin with, but that matters little if the people haven't read it. If we had felt that these problems had been serious enough to deal with and that the federal government was the best way to deal with them, we could have added it into the Contract.
Of course, neither party points this out because if the people actually understood that their Contract was being violated when the party out of power got their turn to be in power again, they wouldn't be able to exploit the Contract themselves. That's why winning elections by getting you to vote your beliefs is more important than getting you to vote on the one thing that should matter: the person with the best ability to do the job they were sworn in to do. Still wondering what it is they swear to do?
It's the last sentence of Article 2, Section 1 of that Contract. If you still don't see why it's important for you to read it, I'll just put that sentence here for you:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Pretty simple, huh?
There's only one candidate who can say that he has done this without fail for 20 years. Congressman Ron Paul. Of course, both parties want you to think he's crazy because if he were elected the people would see how simple this government thing really is, start paying attention, and regain their freedom and power (which would take it from the politicians) because he would honor the people's end of the Contract.
If you watch every debate, he has never criticized the Democrats for America's problems and sometimes seems to blame Republicans. And despite what Republicans would have you believe, it isn't because he's a pacifist liberal in disguise. It's because he knows it's not the Democrats who are the problem. It's both parties. And it's because they violate the Contract between We the People and our government. And we seem to tacitly endorse this because we voted based on our beliefs instead of voting for candidates who would ensure we had the right to hold those beliefs.
If Barack Obama really wanted to do something about the special interests he claims to detest, he'd make government smaller so it wouldn't be worth millions to them to send their lobbyists since the government wouldn't have anything to do with the interests for which they are lobbying. The bigger the government is, and the more they intervene in areas which they have absolutely no right under their Contract in which to be involved the more lobbyists and special interests have a reason to come to D.C. By doing things "for the people" that the "people believe in" the more power is taken from the people and put into the hands of special interest groups.
If you are a Republican/Democrat first, Conservative/Liberal second, and an American third vote your beliefs. If you are an American first, vote for someone who will defend the very thing that protects your right to be what an American is supposed to be: Free. That choice is as simple as government was supposed to be before politics got in the way. Don't sacrifice what you want most (freedom) for what you want at the moment (someone to solve your problems).
©2008 John Armstrong, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Monday, February 11, 2008
Last modified: Friday, February 15, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of John Armstrong only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Armstrong is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by John Armstrong of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By John Armstrong |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: stefan
Date: 2008-02-11 08:09:04
Hmmm Obama's history on civil liberties are not good: he voted for the Patriot Act and regarding the iraq war, although he was initially aginst it, he did vote with Hillary Clinton once in senate, so his history on Iraq is also not good. Yes, he sounds nice with "hope" and "change", but it is like writing a blank cheque: you have no idea what he will do exactly. If you do not have your ideal candidate on the ballot box, rather not vote than vote for a candidate who is the lesser of two evils? Principles above persons.
Posted By: roland
Date: 2008-02-11 10:22:11
John, I have issued the same challenge to an old friend of mine. she went to UMASS for a few years and returned a new person. She actually brought up the whole politics issue. She has a few friends up north that are involved in the obama campaign somewhat, so one would assume she could easily "enlighten" me. she gave all the general slogans and responses Barak's supporters are known for. you know the ones; "he has inspired me, he wants change, he doesn't like lobbyists, anybody but Hillary." I asked her to give me specifics, she could not.
She asked me who I was supporting, I just told her I was 100% behind the most honest man in Washington. I didn't give her a name or any other info, but she knew exactly who I was talking about. You guessed it. She looked me in the eye and said "Ron Paul." I didn't say yes or no, i just let her think about it for a few days.
She said she would get some info and spend time with me and I would then change my vote to Obama. I agreed to listen to her case and be objective about it. I told her I would do the same with my guy. she agreed.
a few days passed and she began to text me little things. i then asked her why, even in her praise it sounds like she is a bit weary of obama and his "change" She said "I don't think he is the most honest person, but he is genuine." WHAT?!?! I then text her back with this; "So, you're saying he is dishonestly genuine, or are you saying he is genuinely dishonest?" She then accused me twisting words. We still have not spoke for more than a few minutes to get each others points across. She is still an obama-girl and i am still a Paul fan.
Look, I know of other Obama supporters that feel the same way she does, why then, do they continue to support him? I have no doubt about Ron Paul. I am a very level headed, hard working, first time voter who chose not to vote before because I do understand that voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still a vote for evil. Every candidate has a case against the media being biased, just look at the blogs, what alot of these hypocritical supporters fail to realize is that Ron Paul is getting the WORST of the media. He and us (his supporters) have been attacked on all fronts, no other candidate in history has been treated in such a fashion by both sides. NONE! It's like I said before, alot the supporters of Obama, Hillary, McCain, and the Huck cry foul only when it's their guy being marginalized. Even the candidates themselves do not have the character to speak on the behalf of the lesser known candidates and the unfair treatment of them by the media. Again, Only Ron Paul possesses this honorable characteristic. I could go on and on...
Posted By: Charles
Date: 2008-02-11 13:50:03
John, I really don't think you are going to find success here. I am an Obama supporter but I feel that a lot of points Paulites make against Obama, and indeed all the other candidates, are just not based on fact. They are based on assumptions that are accepted as fact by the entire Paul movement. Consequently, you will not find mainstream voters that can argue against you on level grounds because you both believe in different realities.
In addition, the people that reply to this article are probably going to be anti-Paul. In that case, it would probably be better to ask why they don't support Paul than why they support someone else. I think there is another assumption within the Paul movement that if everyone were to be informed about Ron Paul they would instantly support him. To me, this is simply not the case. Lots of people vote against Ron Paul not because they haven't heard of him, but because they simply disagree with his positions. It would probably be more enlightening for Ron Paul supporters to find out why people disagree with the man you feel is essentially infallible.
Posted By: A.J. Antimony
Date: 2008-02-11 14:23:59
Charles, John didn't ask for "different realities." All he said is he's eager to hear about "Obama's reality" and to understand why he's the candidate he should support. That's all.
"I think there is another assumption within the Paul movement that if everyone were to be informed about Ron Paul they would instantly support him"
No, just the understanding of basic high school ecnomics should get the job done. Enlighten yourself on the different schools of economics and you'll see why economists like Paul's policies over Obama's. For a candidate who abuses the word "change," I just fail to see how Obama's plan of more reckless government spending is any different than that of the Bush administration.
Posted By: Charles
Date: 2008-02-11 15:21:11
First off, you obviously completely misunderstood my point about "realities." An Obama supporter cannot convince a Ron Paul supporter to support Obama because the Paulites operate under too many false (in my opinion) assumptions. A perfect (yet drastic) example are the Paul supporters that advocate armed revolution because they assume vote rigging is so widespread that we don't live in a democracy anyway. An Obama supporter can never argue this point, primarily because it's not true.
Secondly, you took my other point and just drove it home like a champ. I am pretty informed of Ron Paul's positions and I don't agree with them. Why you would think that high school econ would change my mind is beyond me. Again, a lot more people than you think know about Paul and simply don't support him. Making vaguely intellectual statements that imply I am ill-informed isn't going to get you anywhere.
Posted By: dan robbins
Date: 2008-02-11 17:19:59
um i just wanted to point out, anyone i mention the name ron paul too says... who's that? hes runnin for president? all i know about is the black guy and the woman.... o and the pastor with the funny name
haha but charles... if you didnt want to answer the question, why not just not answer instead of asserting your opinion as to why the question is not productive... your opinion is counter productive in fact to to answering the question at hand. And i will gladly give you examples of voter fraud, and rigged elections if you want
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ek2rXxFEzWI
i actually reccomend you watch this blatant voter fraud, then look at washington states 'suspended' vote counting at 87 percent of votes tallied when projecting mccain to win when he only leads by 1.8 percent... a little odd isnt it? and the diebold machines are known to be easily hacked and this is documented in european media.
however i would NOT recommend a revolutoin of arms i would not do that until they make it illegal to be christian or directly take away my rights DIRECTLY
just wanted to correct you
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-11 17:36:54
Charles, Did you click the link? I could be convinced to support Barack Obama if you could convince me he was the best qualified for the job. This has nothing to do with 'policy' or what you 'agree' with. Maybe the simplicity is escaping you. Why would Obama be better at doing what he would swear in to do than Ron Paul? That's all I'm asking. If you don't want to click the link, the Oath of office is this: I swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President and will to the best of my ability PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America. If you would like me to give you specific examples of when Obama and others have violated a very similar Oath while in Congress, I will be glad to give them to you. This is a logical question which should produce a logical debate. This isn't about what you agree or don't agree with-it's about the ability of any other candidate to do what they swear they will when elected. The only thing you need to 'agree' with is that you are an American and then understand that your rights and freedom as an American are protected under this Contract we have with our government. Just convince me that Obama would do this better that Ron Paul and you win my vote. One thing Obama may be able to do better regarding the first part of the Oath is fulfill his Constitutuonal obligation to receive ambassodors. I'll give you that one. Let's go from there.
Posted By: Greg
Date: 2008-02-12 08:30:45
Looking at the Job Description:
Posted By: Charles
Date: 2008-02-12 10:10:41I have no interest in trying to change your mind, primarily because you are just not going to let it happen. This whole article is one giant rhetorical question. I mean, no matter what I say you are just going to respond with "but Ron Paul wants to uphold the constitution." You often claim that the founding fathers would've never supported some of the stuff our government does today, but would the founders ever envision the United States as the most powerful country in the world? I very much doubt that. The founders included quite a few methods for adapting the government throughout time (amendments, Supreme Court rulings, etc.) that you seem to ignore.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-12 10:44:09Charles,
Your response saddens me for two major reasons:
1. You still don't understand the true importance of the Constitution and what it means to you as a citizen.
2. You actually believe that Supreme Court rulings are a way to change the Constitution and that our being the most powerful nation in the world has somehow makes it okay to not follow the Contract that caused us to be that. I addressed amendments fully--did you even read the article?
And this isn't a "rhetorical" question. It's the single most important question not being discussed in this election, and I refuse to let that happen.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-12 10:46:56Last thing: I will never respond with "Ron Paul WANTS to uphold the Constitution." He DOES uphold the Contract We the People have with our government. Which is why he's the best candidate. This is very, very simple. The "rhetoric" is what confuses.
Posted By: Charles
Date: 2008-02-12 17:19:50YOU don't understand the Constitution. YOU don't understand the fact that it was written 220 years ago in very, VERY different times. Our Constitution is one of the shortest in the world. It is this way intentionally. It is not meant to be a limiting factor in the growth of our nation - the very opposite, in fact. Ron Paul and his supporters operate under this idea that anything not explicitly mentioned by the Constitution should just not be allowed. Do you have any idea what that actually entails? There are hundreds of programs that do a great deal for this country that Ron Paul would just destroy without a second thought. Ron Paul, for example, wants to get rid of the Department of Education. Do you have any idea what that means to me? The Department of Education pays my way through college. If it weren't for the DoE, I would not be in college right now. And you think you can improve on that process? How?
Listen, I stated from the beginning that I have no desire to explain why I support Obama. I don't need to justify you why. That's why it's MY decision and not yours. But as this conversation continues, I find a more pertinant question to be: why do YOU support Ron Paul? All I ever hear from you people is "let's bring back liberty!" and (direct quote-ish) "high school economics would show you why Ron Paul is the best candidate." I've never heard a single concrete statement why he is the best.
So go ahead. Give it a shot. I don't think you can.
Posted By: Joey Penney
Date: 2008-02-12 23:04:26There is the fact that Barack taught constitutional law while he was a professor. If you google around you can find quite a few comments by his former students on his command of the subject matter.
Posted By: Libertas
Date: 2008-02-12 23:54:50You want a few reasons to support Ron Paul, alright I'll give you one; and only one reason.
Truth.
How much of what this man has said in his entire career in congress has been a lie? (Name a candidate other than RP that can say this.)
How much of what this man has voted for supports "upholding the constitution"?
You ask for me to tell you why studying high school economics, I ask why you havent even looked up what Austrian School of Economics is. Hows this whats the definition of Inflation and how does the Federal Reserve Board adjust it. (or why do things get more expensive)
It is not every columnists job to educate, to an author there can be varying degrees of intent for the piece whether it be persuasive, informative, descriptive, or creative, (sometimes comical).
However, when you are the MSM you're main job is to educate the people, because we have allowed these business's to come in and to keep us informed on what is going on in the Gov't. look up why gov't transparency is questionable right now and why it might make things easier.
There are more questions that I can ask you that you have no answers to.
The fact is Ron Paul is the only candidate qualified and if I have only one reason other than his issues, I would pick him strictly based on his Record. What does obama's say? How bout Huckabee?
Now maybe if you spent some time and did some actual research on
1. What the constitution really says.
2. What issues Ron Paul supports and why.
3. Do some history and math homework. specifically political history of the Republican Party, and the second you can focus on a simple College level Macroeconomics class.
4. Find out when Obama really wants the troops out of Iraq.
That should take you until Nov. probably longer on #4. Good Luck
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-13 01:29:25Charles,
I'm going to post your email and post it in an article I'm going to write either tonight or tomorrow. I really hope you're kidding.
Posted By: David
Date: 2008-02-13 01:35:52Yes, the constitution is quite old, quaint even. So you can take the side of "it's just a piece of paper" or you can take the side of Ron Paul. Why is it that people invoke the constitution only when they want / need to? Seriously, either take it or leave it, but don't be lukewarm about it. If you think it needs to be updated, then update it; if you think it needs to be chucked in the garbage, well do that; but to ignore it seems to be a dereliction of duty.
Why do you think it is so short - so you don't need a lawyer to figure it out; so that you can understand it yourself; so that you can't ignore it. If you really want to ignore it, then just put in a vote to destroy it forever and don't pull it out when you want something out of it. The constitution is both a gift and duty; take it as it is, change it, or simply ditch it; you decide.
If a president, member of congress, member of the military, etc. decides to ignore it, then the person should simply decline to swear an oath to uphold it.
Posted By: Charles
Date: 2008-02-13 14:04:52John, I hope you are refering to the post I made above, because I didn't email you. If someone did email you, that wasn't me.
Posted By: Charles
Date: 2008-02-13 14:13:08Also, Libertas, you still didn't give me one factual reason why Ron Paul is best candidate. None at all. Truth? How can you possibly know that he hasn't lied? And then you further go on to tell ME to do research. I refuse. The burden is on you. If you feel that Ron Paul is the best candidate, you tell me why. You guys all speak about how you want to spread the word about Ron Paul. If the spread the word in this manner, you really haven't told anyone anything.
I don't think there is much of a question that our current government has done its best to sidestep the constitution. I have to commend them on the ingenius ways they've managed to convince many they haven't actually violated it. But to run the government in the way Ron Paul wants to just flat out ignores 220 years of progress. It's not 1789 anymore, don't act like it is.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-14 02:54:00Charles,
Your article is ready. I wrote a speech for Obama that I'll be posting tomorrow. It was part of the article you inspired, but it made it too long. If Obama actually gave a (better version of) the speech I'll be posting, he really could be the greatest President in America's History. If he doesn't, it won't be long until someone Ron Paul has inspired comes along and actually gives a speech like this--then it will be over.
Maybe Wayne Allyn Root.
Posted By: David X
Date: 2008-02-14 03:25:09It takes exceptional intelligence to understand that
Posted By: David X
Date: 2008-02-14 03:27:22It takes exceptional intelligence to understand that less is more, and to see things in perspective. The federal government is so big that most people just can't comprehend how big it really is. The pentagon alone has a budget of well over 1 Billion dollars PER DAY. We are talking ridiculously large amounts of money and power.
To the average person, the figure of $1,000,000,000+/day is so big that they just don't understand it. You could add or subtract a couple more zeros to/from that number, and it would still look the same to most people. It's just a meaningless string of digits that is beyond the mental capacity of the majority.
When you have a government that is that big, on such a scale that the majority can't even grasp the true size, you achieve what is known as an out-of-control democracy. People act like there is not going to be corruption when that much money is involved. I have news for you.
When the majority just doesn't understand the scale of things, and doesn't have the technical background or business experience to grasp numbers like this, they aren't going to be able to appreciate Ron Paul's position, either.
The US is out-of-control, voters don't get it, and the only thing that could stop it I think were if individual states were to start standing up for themselves somehow and stop feeding the monster that is our Federal government.
Our government has outgrown its people and the only way to fix it is to make it smaller.
Posted By: Dave A
Date: 2008-02-14 15:29:19John,
Good article and follow-on discussion. However I'd like to point out a minor oversight in your argument that is commonplace in discussions about the Constitution.
Once pointed out, you will experience an "Aha!" moment if you truly understand what the founders were driving at (which it appears you do).
To wit: You wrote...
"...we the people dictated the terms of that Contract to give the government its rights..."
This is incorrect. The "government" is a legal creation which has powers, not rights.
Rights are absolute and belong to natural people, who grant limited powers via the Constitution over their individual rights to "the government". POWERs are limited and may be rescinded without the consent of their holder. RIGHTs may not be curtailed without the consent of their owner.
The government has been granted the POWER to take private property (ie. steal) via taxation, subject to uniformity or proportionality depending on the type of tax. The government has no RIGHT to take your property, only the POWER to do so because it is so granted in the Constitution.
Remove the grant and the government loses its POWER.
Keep this in mind when discussing the Contract analogy.
Otherwise your article is spot on. Keep it up. Some of those who slept through history in high school might learn a thing or two.
Posted By: Richard
Date: 2008-02-15 08:58:23
Posted By: Richard
Date: 2008-02-15 09:37:41Hey Charles,Ron Paul and his supporters operate under this idea that anything not explicitly mentioned by the Constitution should just not be allowed. Do you have any idea what that actually entails?Yes: adherence to Amendment 10 of the document that established this federal government in the first place.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.If you allow your Contract to be violated, even with good intentions, it'll come back to haunt you.
Posted By: Greg
Date: 2008-02-26 09:13:45