Both readers and, more importantly, I are losing track of all the articles I've written, so here is some organization. by Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Since the articles on my author home page are in chronological order, it is a bit messy to find themes on my home page and I've had a few complaints - most importantly from myself! - so you can use the outline below as a reference guide. I will update perhaps once a month or so, so check the update date - perhaps I did not get around to filing away a few.
When I started writing back in February 2008 I honestly never expected I would write so many articles. Thanks a lot for your interest and reading, as June 1st, 2011, my total readership has passed 466,000 hits just at the Nolan Chart which is good - for starters :) The truth is, I would also write even if I was my only reader, but probably a lot less. I am also a contributing author at the libertarian website www.LibertyMaven.com, www.CampaignForLiberty.com, PopulistAmerica.com and have been published at the investment sites www.SeekingAlpha.com, goldseek.com, and silverseek.com among others. My article links have been found on dollarcollapse.com, 321gold.com, and 24hgold.com.
(I believe this will always be a work in progress, the below are books, essays, movies, etc. that I feel are worthwhile and educational. This may even mean that I do not agree with anything in the source. My favorites are marked with a ***. Feel free to leave any suggestions in the comment field below, as I am always searching for more viewpoints.)
Andelman, David A. A Shattered Peace: Versailles and the Price We Pay Today. 2008. Andelman is a CFR flunkie (I am no fan) but worthy reading never the less. He places a lot of blame on the idealistic Woodrow Wilson and portrays the Yanks as clueless when confronted with the cunning Europeans. Unfortunately in his modern references, Andelman fails to realize America may be just as clueless today as we were in 1919.
Anonymous. "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars." (1979?) Whether the author was an individual or a government is fairly moot. The crux of this document is the idea for a weapon system unlike all others that stealthily takes over and controls society. The idea that this is possible is important to grasp.
Bacevich, Andrew. 2008. The Limits of Power - The End of American Exceptionalism.
Bastiat, Frederic. *** 1848. "The Law." Takes an hour to absorb, it is so key to understand his concept of how the government "legally plunders." Bastiat describes why the force of the state used to rob or redistribute wealth from the populace is a major moral wrong. Bastiat wrote this in France as the socialists drove the country to ruin.
Carter, Jimmy. 2006. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
Chandler, David. 1999. Brother Number One: A Political Biography of Pol Pot.
Chang, Iris. *** 1997. The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II. One of the most powerful books I have ever read, though I advise reading it on a sunny day. Chang uncovered and researched a truly forgotten massacre by the Japanese in the years preceding WWII. While in a depression, she evidently committed suicide while researching a book on the deaths of American servicemen during the Bataan Death March, which is something I will never do (the suicide thing, and hopefully never a death march as well :) "I wrote it out of a sense of rage. I didn't really care if I made a cent from it. It was important to me that the world knew what happened in Nanking back in 1937." Having visited her memorial at the Nanjing Massacre Museum in 2006, I believe I have learned something very valuable from her death - although I frequently write in a bemused sense of cold, methodical outrage, I have remembered to not forget that life is truly beautiful.
Chang, Jung. 2004. Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China. A generational tale of Chang's mother and grandmother, culminating with her own experiences as one of Mao's Red Guards.
Chang, Jung and Jon Holliday. 2005. Mao: The Untold Story. Not light reading and extremely critical and biased towards Mao. However, it is exceptionally well-researched.
Cleveland, Clyde. 2008. Common Sense Revisited. Aims to be a modern-day remake of Paine's inspirational 1776 pamphlet. "Indigenous power" vs. "Surrogate power."
Friedman, David. 1982. "Gold, Paper, or... is there a Better Money?" A Monetarist outlook on money. I admit I threw my hands up when this fence-sitter concluded: "I will therefore continue to use the present system unless I can somehow arrange for everyone else to shift at the same time I do."
Garret, Garet. 1953. "The People's Pottage." Compilation of three essays starting with the statist "New Dealer" administration.
Jackson, Andrew. "Why the United States Bank was Closed." (1832). President Jackson outlines the evils of central banking and explains why he closed the country's central bank, which was a predecessor of the Federal Reserve. Fueled by an indomitable will, Jackson succeeded.
Jefferson, Thomas. Editor Merrill D. Peterson. 1993. The Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson, Thomas. 1801. First Inaugural Address. Famous quote on his "peace, commerce, and honest friendship" foreign policy of nonintervention.
Johnson, Chalmers. *** 2000. Blowback. On American foreign policy.
Johnson, Chalmers. 2004. The Sorrows of Empire. Sequel to Blowback, while I disagree with Johnson on his economic views, decently solid on the documentation on foreign policy.
Lips, Ferdinand. 2001. Gold Wars. New York: The Foundation for the Advancement of Monetary Education. Amazing perspective on gold from an ex-Rothschild banker.
Martenson, Chris. While I do not agree with a lot of what Dr. Martenson says, this 4 minute and this 7 minute video are great visuals for understanding money creation.
McFadden, Louis T. "Congressman McFadden's Speech on the Federal Reserve Corporation." (1934). A passionate plea to Congress to impeach the Fed Board of Governors and the Secretary of the Treasury. McFadden was probably assassinated. His name is blackened by anti-Semite charges per Wikipedia, although there is no mention of this in his speech. A refutation of his speech is here, in my opinion it is toothless.
Mises Institute. "Congressman Ron Paul debating FED Governor Charles Partee." 1983. Movie. "The paper standard is *ucking history, and it’s *ucking economic law, and economic truth." - Dr. Paul. See 13:00. Talk about fireworks! It appears at one time the FED was willing to debate, I very much respect the courage of Partee to address the sound money wolfpack in attendance.
Paine, Thomas. 1987. The Thomas Paine Reader. Penguin Books. "Common Sense."
Paul, Ron. "Pillars of Prosperity." (2008) A 400+ page compilation of Dr. Paul's writings. After reading these, one realizes that Dr. Paul did very little recent work in putting together his best-selling "The Revolution" as most of this book was written 20+ years ago.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution 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.
Alright Jake let's find out what kind of political candidate you really are. I assume you are serious that you are seeking congressional political office in the 15th District. Please answer the following question "yes" or "no"
As a member of Congress you are required to take an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States which means in simple terms obeying the terms, conditions and specifications of that document.
One of the terms and conditions and specifications of the Constitution of the United States is that "on the application of two-thirds of the several state legislatures, [Congress] shall call a convention to propose amendments" to our present Constitution. Article V, United States Constitution.
The public record is irrefutable. The states have applied in sufficient number to satisfy this requirement which, until now Congress has refused to obey. The Solicitor General of the United States acting in his official capacity as legal representative for the Congress of the United States as a matter of public record has so stated this fact as well as acknowledging that the convention call is "peremptory" meaning Congress has no option or choice in the matter. The question is:
Will you obey the Constitution of the United States, if elected to the office of Congress that you seek, as required by your oath of office and move to compel Congress call a convention as it is required to do so or will you disobey the Constitution as well as your oath of office (which is a criminal offense) and not support the Constitution of the United States in this instance?
Posted By: Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-06-17 10:03:20
Dear Bill -
You wrote: "I assume you are serious that you are seeking congressional political office in the 15th District."
My reply is: Yes, you better believe it.
Please pardon if I don't answer with a straight yes or no. Your question isn't perfectly phrased.
"Will you obey the Constitution of the United States?"
My reply is: Yes, as specified by Article VI, Section 3 which reads: "Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
However this does not forbid me from proposing Amendments - I am not fond of the 16th, 17th, and 18th Amendments but I would need to check with the district.
Article V states "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress"
So in reply to your question, if 34 States have called a convention, then that is the proper route or 2/3 of the House/Senate call one. I confess I am not 100% sure of the steps that a Member of Congress should take in the instance OF a Convention, so I will add this to my to-do list. This is obviously important as 3/4 majority in Convention could pass Amendments.
Feel free to share with me any information you have on Conventions, I would much appreciate it!