"Pro-Life" Candidates Should Put Up Or Shut Up

"Pro-Life" Candidates Should Put Up Or Shut Up
by Chuck Baldwin
November 30, 2007

Please consider this scenario. Several youngsters are drowning in a neighborhood lake. They are thrashing the water and crying out for help. There is a large, heavy raft nearby that could be used to rescue the drowning youths, but it would take several people to haul it into the water and then row it out to the victims.

Now, as it happens, there are more than enough people standing around the lake whose combined efforts would be more than adequate to rescue the drowning young people. Instead of grabbing the life raft and heading out to save the victims, however, they all start making speeches.

One by one, the would-be rescuers holler out that they believe in life; they believe in saving the lives of the drowning young people. They are all "pro-life." The only problem is, none of them grabs the raft and actually attempts to save the victims. So, here is the sixty-four million dollar question: are these people really "pro-life"? Do they really want to save the victims, or are they simply pro-life pretenders who only want to talk about saving lives but not actually do anything about it?

There is no one reading this column who would accept the pro-life rhetoric of the people around the lake as justification for not grabbing the life raft and actually saving the lives of those who were drowning. Then, why do "pro-life" conservatives accept the rhetoric of Republican politicians when there is no action to back it up?

If Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee are truly "pro-life," they need to do more than just talk. They need to put up or shut up!

Ladies and gentlemen, it doesn't take some magical Supreme Court appointment to overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand. If all the Republicans who keep telling us that they are "pro-life" (including President George W. Bush) were really pro-life, then why, in spite of having had ample time and opportunity to end the abortion holocaust, have they not done so?

In fact, the GOP has controlled the U.S. Supreme Court since the infamous Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion-on-demand was handed down in 1973. That means GOP appointments have dominated the Court for over thirty years, and yet abortion-on-demand is still the law of the land.

Beyond that, for six years (2000-2006), "pro-life" Republicans controlled the entire federal government. And, for six years, millions of unborn babies cried their silent screams as the abortionists' scalpels ripped their little bodies apart in abortuaries throughout America. And to use my opening analogy, all these "pro-life" Republicans did was stand by the side of the lake and talk "pro-life," while the youngsters drowned in front of their eyes. During all this time, the life raft sat unused on the shore.

Dear reader, the life raft for the millions of unborn babies victimized by abortion-on-demand is the U.S. Constitution. However, we have a bunch of arrogant and conceited imbeciles in Washington, D.C., who have neither the smarts nor guts to use this wonderful life raft. It seems that the vast majority of them have absolutely no knowledge of the Constitution--even though each and every one of them takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend it.

The only presidential candidate who has a commitment to saving the lives of unborn babies and who understands the constitutional authority of Congress to end abortion-on-demand is Texas Congressman Ron Paul (with the exception of Alan Keyes, who recently announced his candidacy). You read it right. At this point, John McCain is all talk; Mitt Romney is all talk; Fred Thompson is all talk. And even Mike Huckabee is all talk.

Huckabee says that when he was Governor of Arkansas he required parental notification for abortions, required a woman give informed consent before having an abortion, and required a woman be told that her baby would experience pain and be given the option of anesthesia for her baby. (Source: Mike Huckabee's website) While this is commendable, none of Huckabee's actions did anything to actually end abortion-on-demand.

When it comes to ending abortion-on-demand and overturning Roe v. Wade, the only thing Mike Huckabee (and the rest of the Republican presidential candidates, save Ron Paul and Alan Keyes) will say is that they will appoint the right judges, as if they have no power as President to do anything else. (Good grief! Even Rudy Giuliani says as much.) My friends, these "pro-life" Republicans are either woefully ignorant themselves or they are pulling the proverbial wool over our eyes.

Ron Paul seems to be the only presidential candidate who understands that under Article. III. Section. 2., the Constitution gives to the Congress of the United States the power to hold rogue courts in check and to overturn outlandish rulings such as Roe v. Wade.

Accordingly, Ron Paul has introduced and reintroduced the Sanctity of Life Act (including in the current Congress). If passed, this Bill would recognize the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The Bill also recognizes the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, this Bill would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision. The Bill would also deny funding for abortion providers. In plain language, the Bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand.

Is it not more than interesting that "pro-life" President George W. Bush, along with the "pro-life" Republican Party leadership of both houses of Congress, refused--and continues to refuse--to support Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act? In addition, not a single "pro-life" presidential candidate outside of Ron Paul has even bothered to mention the Sanctity of Life Act, much less aggressively call for its implementation with a promise that, if elected President, he would sign it into law. Not Huckabee; not McCain; not Thompson; not Romney; none of them!

Why did John McCain not introduce Dr. Paul's Sanctity of Life bill in the U.S. Senate? Why have Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson not committed to use the power of the bully pulpit of the White House to push Congress to implement this Act? Again, either these men are ignorant of their constitutional duties and responsibilities (in which case, they are unqualified for the office of President) or they are not truly serious about overturning Roe v. Wade and ending abortion-on-demand (in which case, they are conservative phonies and frauds).

I say again, it is time for "pro-life" Republicans to put up or shut up!

Beyond that, it is time for Christian conservatives to stop being so gullible. We need to start looking beyond eloquent rhetoric and campaign clichés. We need to begin demanding results.

Every four years, Republicans trot out a conservative façade during an election season for the purpose of obtaining the votes of susceptible Christians. And every four years, conservative Christians--like starving catfish--take the bait: hook, line, and sinker.

"Save us from the monster," seems to be the cry of well-meaning--but easily manipulated--conservatives. The "monster" is whoever the Democrats nominate, of course. But, ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has done absolutely nothing to change the course of the country. Nothing! In fact, it has only gotten worse with Republicans in charge.

Ron Paul is the only candidate running against the status quo. He is the only candidate who takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. He is the only candidate who, if elected, would actually turn the country around. A Ron Paul victory would launch a new American revolution: a revolution of freedom and independence such as we have not seen since 1776. Furthermore, among the major Republican presidential contenders, Ron Paul is the only candidate whose pro-life commitment extends beyond rhetoric.

© Chuck Baldwin

PS. One further note regarding Mike Huckabee. He will not win the GOP nomination, but what he will do is wind up endorsing (or perhaps even being selected as the Vice Presidential candidate) whichever Republican candidate wins the nomination--even if he is a pro-abortion candidate. Thus, he will fulfill his role in this election: to bring Christian conservatives into the Republican fold, even without a commitment to the life issue by their standard-bearer. In other words, Huckabee is the establishment's guy to make sure that the Christian conservatives stay "in line."

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071130.html

Série "Mozart was a Red"

"I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it." Eisenhower

Série "Internacionalismo é"

Bismarck's Warning

"One thing is certain: an attempt to create an independent "Kosova" is illegal. There are more around the world besides Belgrade and Moscow that oppose it. Washington has violated international law on many occasions; indeed, the assault on then-Yugoslavia in 1999 was perhaps the most flagrant. But this is not 1999; and even that war stopped short of an outright land grab.

If the Albanian separatists declare their "independence," on December 10 or any time thereafter, recognition of that would be just the "damn fool thing in the Balkans" Bismarck had warned about. The first time it unleashed the cataclysm of 1914. What will it do now?

If you answer "nothing," that's precisely what the kings and emperors had said back then." Nebojsa Malic

* this is not 1999; President Wilsons Fourteen Points the device that was allegedly meant to end the war in early 1918 espoused the principle of self-determination. It threw a revolutionary doctrine at an already exhausted Europe, a doctrine almost on par with Bolshevism in its destabilizing effect. It unleashed competing aspirations among the smaller nations of Central Europe and the Balkans that not only hastened the collapse of transnational empires, but also gave rise to a host of intractable ethnic conflicts and territorial disputes that remain unresolved to this day. But being a good liberal, Wilson did not allow realities on the ground to get in the way of his creativity. His concepts of an "enlarging democracy" and "collective security" signaled the birth of a view of Americas role in world affairs which has created and is still creating endless problems for both America and the world. It is Wilson speaking through President George W. Bush who declared, only a week ago, that America not only "created the conditions in which new democracies could flourish" but "also provided inspiration for oppressed peoples."

Two decades after Wilson, burdened by Clemenceaus untenable revenge of Versailles, Europe staggered into a belated Round Two of self-destruction. Before 1939 it was badly wounded; after 1945 mortally so. The result is a civilization that is aborting and birth-controlling itself to death, that is morally bankrupt, culturally spent, and spiritually comatose. We are living if life it is�the consequences of what had ended on that November morning at Compiegne.

Programas nucleares

New York Times :Nixon Papers Recall Concerns on Israel’s Weapon“There is circumstantial evidence that some fissionable material available for Israel’s weapons development was illegally obtained from the United States about 1965,” Mr. Kissinger noted in his long memorandum. One problem with trying to persuade Israel to freeze its nuclear program is that inspections would be useless, Mr. Kissinger said, conceding that “we could never cover all conceivable Israeli hiding places.”“This is one program on which the Israelis have persistently deceived us,” Mr. Kissinger said, “and may even have stolen from us."

CNN Debate

Tendo em conta o extremo cuidado selectivo com que as poucas perguntas foram feitas, Ron Paul saiu-se até muito bem. Como diz o outro:

"His question were:

1. Are you a conspiracy nut or not? (Kind of like -- have you stopped beating your wife?)

2. How would you punish women for having an abortion? (Which as a question was a foul ball.)

3. Even though you have no hope of winning, do you think there's purpose to your campaign? (Come again?)"

Série "Isolacionismo é"

Professor Juan Cole's blog:

"McCain blames Rise of Hitler on Ron Paul
Not Invading and Occupying other Countries Branded 'Isolationism'

Via (LRCBlog)

Momento Freud Paul

Foi giro ver Ian Curtis (Joy Division) no excelente filme "Control" dizer "I´m a Royalist".

Percebe-se que terá sido a última alma artistica (a melhor da época? ainda hoje Heart and Soul parece de amanhã) desta nossa civilização cristã a suicidar-se (com 23 anos antes da digressão pelos EUA) por conflito moral pessoal e intransmissível entre os deveres de marido e pai com a mulher e os deveres com a amante.

10 000 000 Usd

Ron Paul está perto de o alcançar em 2 meses.

“Disastrous” compared to what?

Via Insurgente: Jonah Goldberg sobre Ron Paul e Mike Huckabee (2)

Carta de Don Boudreaux enviada ao New York Post: Like National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, I’m frightened by Mike Huckabee’s itch to regulate (“Who’s Extreme?” November 24). Also like Goldberg, I admire Ron Paul for being that rare politician of principle.

But I disagree with Goldberg’s prediction Ron Paul’s noninterventionist foreign policy would be “disastrous.” “Disastrous” compared to what? To Bush’s failed and bloody effort to remake Iraqi society? To Bush being obliged now to side with Pakistan’s reigning strongman? To the neocons’ - and National Review’s - strange notion that the same government that is inherently incompetent to regulate the economy here at home is ordained by history with the obligation, wisdom, and ability to re-engineer whole societies elsewhere?"

CNN Youtube Debate falls short, Ron Paul the elephant in the room

USA Daily: The CNN/Youtube Republican debate held in St Petersburg Florida fell short.

CNN’s host Anderson Cooper directed most of the questions to Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney and he continuously allowed Romney and Giuliani to speak longer than the time allotted to them. It was most noticeable that Ron Paul was given the least amount of time to speak of any of the candidates.

The extra time did not help Romney or Giuliani both of whom did not do to well explaining their poor records on illegal immigration. Romney and Giuliani also looked a little silly repeating the same slogans from previous debates.

Romney also looked bad dodging questions on homosexuals in the military and the policy of water boarding saying he’d seek advice from experts on those issues to help him formulate his policy as president.

John McCain did not do much better on the issue of illegal immigration being booed by the audience when he claimed that he did not propose amnesty for illegal aliens. McCain was also booed when he said he opposed the Fair Tax.

Answering a question from a You/Tube video Ron Paul said, “There is a move toward a North American Union and our national sovereignty is under threat”. Surprisingly no other candidate was asked to weigh in on this well documented issue that is a threat to U.S. representative government.

Responding to McCain’s now somewhat redundant phrase “We went to Washington to change Washington but Washington changed us”. Ron Paul said, “Washington did not change me” to loud applause.

McCain was also booed when he attacked Paul on his opposition to the war. Paul pointed out that he raised more money from the military than anyone else.

Later in the debate Ron Paul said “The best commitment we can make to the Iraqi people is to give them their country back. It’s time to take care of America first.” Ron Paul also said “We are taxed to blow up the bridges overseas, taxed to rebuild those bridges and our bridges are falling down.” Shortly afterward Paul’s YouTube commercial aired showing a large crowd at an event.
Paul then said, “This country is sick and tired of what they are getting. We are in the middle of a revolution and I’m happy to be part of it.”

Paul pointed out that he had 5,000 people of all races turned out for his rally outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia. CNN claimed after the debate that it was only 2000 people however several news wires reported that the crowd was between 3000-5000 people.

The audience at the debate appeared to be divided on the war in Iraq as both boos and cheers accompanied pro war and anti war statements. "

Lying Visions of Peace

The lying peace process exposes how Jews refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state, and how Jews are willing to sacrifice each other and sell out the Land and People of Israel if the price is right: both political and religious leaders are guilty of these sins that stink to High Heaven...

Lying Visions of Peace

Debate CNN - Conclusões

1. Maccain tenta a cartada standard apelando ao patriotismo intervencionista ideológico-moralista-securitário (que tão bons resultados tem provocado desde a Grande Guerra...). Tem a vantagem de um dia o argumento estar tão estafado como ridiculo.

2. Huckabee lembrou-se agora de dizer que acabava com o IRS (a Ron Paul Revolution já está a surtir efeito)

3. Todos se atacaram mutuamente mas todos têm a mesma plataforma que ... Bush (apesar de nunca ter sido mencionado dado que tem os mais baixos ratings de sempre) ... excepto Ron Paul.

4. Tempos:

Romney -- 7:03, during 9 times
McCain -- 5:09, during 4 times
Giuliani -- 5:08, during 9 times
Thompson -- 4:38, during 4 times
Huckabee -- 4:14, during 5 times
Paul -- 3:27, during 4 times
Tancredo -- 2:20, during 4 times
Hunter -- 2:16, during 3 times

Momento "os isolacionistas é que tiveram culpa"

"McCain: I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed.(Applause)

And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed...(Applause)

We allowed ...(Audience booing)

Cooper: Allow him his answer. Allow him his answer, please.

McCain: We allowed -- we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement."

[E eu que pensei que tivesse sido a democracia alemã (depois de todo o "intervencionismo" pela democracia republicana do internacionalismo wilsoniano impondo a deposição da monarquia alemã e austro-húngara, espalhando população alemã por vários territórios, criando países e impondo Versailles?) ...já agora, como é que Estaline acabou a ganhar a WWII? È pá, quem deixou que Estaline subisse ao poder? E o appeasement com todo conhecido genocídio dos anos 30? Não...foi mesmo... ALIADO! E acabou a conquistar metade da Europa.]

Paul: He doesn't even understand the difference between non- intervention and isolationism. I am talking isolationism. I am [not] isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here and they're going to object to us over there.

(Applause)

Drunk Anglican

Anglican leader soft on Islam, hard on US

The drunk Anglican should be ashamed of his slobberings against Christian Zionism and the United States.

www.davidbenariel.org

Look Homeward, America

"There was a time when conservatives wrote books with titles like Our Enemy, the State. But conservatives ignored Karl Hess, Barry Goldwater's speechwriter who later worked to bring toward unity between the Old Right and the New Left, who said, "Vietnam should remind all conservatives that whenever you put your faith in big government, for any reason, sooner or later you wind up an apologist for mass murder." Now that conservatives have added the "neo-" suffix, big government is the order of the day, fromNo Child Left Behind to the USA PATRIOT Act to The Global War on Terrorism.

As we head into the 2008 presidential race, the candidates in both parties (a.k.a. The War Party) are giving us promises of what the State will do for us (and the world, whether they like or not). Each of the major Republicrat wing candidates leans toward one end of what Murray N. Rothbard called the Welfare-Warfare State. All are talking about expanding the role of the State, with the notable exception of Dr. Ron Paul." Joshua Snyder

Karl Hess mais tarde com Murray N. Rothbard deitaria as primeiras pedras do movimento Libertarian publicando o "The Libertarian Forum" de 1969 a 1984 (um autêntica preciosidade como documento).

PS: Foi retirado de um texto sobre a notável Dorothy Day apelidando-a no titulo de "anarcho-Catholicism: The way of love". Personagem que apenas conheci num magnifico livro de Bill Kauffman, católico conservative-libertarian (Look Homeward America - In search of reactionary radicals and Front-Porch Anarchists).

Voltando a Dorothy Day, fundadora do The Catholic Worker Movement, dizia ela própria: "When it comes to labor and politics, I am inclined to be sympathetic to the left, but when it comes to the Catholic Church, then I am far to the right." She also said, "If the Chancery ordered me to stop publishing The Catholic Worker tomorrow, I would."

Significa que era de esquerda? Bem, não, era uma anti-state localista-comunitária, opondo-se ao New Deal apesar de ter dedicado a sua vida à ajuda dos outros. E como diz o artigo:

"In this remarkable statement, she explains why her movement never registered with the Internal Revenue Service for non-profit tax-exempt status:

Christ commanded His followers to perform what Christians have come to call the Works of Mercy: feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, sheltering the harborless, visiting the sick and prisoner, and burying the dead. Surely a simple program for direct action, and one enjoined on all of us. Not just for impersonal "poverty programs," government-funded agencies, but help given from the heart at a personal sacrifice.

On another level there is a principle laid down, much in line with common sense and with the original American ideal, that governments should never do what small bodies can accomplish: unions, credit unions, cooperatives, St. Vincent de Paul Societies. Peter Maurin's anarchism was on one level based on this principle of subsidiarity, and on a higher level on that scene at the Last Supper where Christ washed the feet of His Apostles. He came to serve, to show the new Way, the way of the powerless. In the face of Empire, the Way of Love.

We believe also that the government has no right to legislate as to who can or who are to perform the Works of Mercy. Only accredited agencies have the status of tax-exempt institutions. After their application has been filed, and after investigation and long delays, clarifications, intercession, and urgings by lawyers - often an expensive and long-drawn-out procedure - this tax-exempt status is granted."

Nota: "In 1983, the Claretian Missionaries proposed that she be sainted, and in 2000, Pope John Paul II gave Archbishop John O'Connor of New York City permission to open her cause. Along with Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, her cause was opened and she received the title Servant of God. She is now on her way to veneration, beatification, and eventual canonization."

E nota final: O livro de Bill Kaufman fala de outras personagens interessantes. Aqui fica um pedaço da introdução.

Reactionary radicals” are those Americans whose political radicalism (often inspired by the principles of 1776 and the culture of the early America) is combined with—in fact, flows from—a deep-set social “conservatism.” These are not radicals who wish to raze venerable institutions and make them anew: they are, in fact, at antipodes from the warhead-clutching egghead described by (the reactionary radical) Robert Lee Frost:

With him the love of country means
Blowing it all to smithereens
And having it all made over new
Look Homeward, America

These reactionary radicals—a capacious category in which I include Dorothy Day, Carolyn Chute, Grant Wood, Eugene McCarthy, Wendell Berry, and a host of other cultural and political figures—have sought to tear down what is artificial, factitious, imposed by remote and often coercive forces and instead cultivate what is local, organic, natural, and family-centered. In our almost useless political taxonomy, some are labeled “right wing” and others are tucked away on the left, but in fact they are kin: embodiments of an American cultural-political tendency that is wholesome, rooted, and based in love of family, community, local self-rule, and a respect for permanent truths. We find them not at the clichéd “bloody crossroads” but at thrillingly fruitful conjunctions: think Robert Nisbet by way of Christopher Lasch, or Russell Kirk by way of Paul Goodman. Think, always, of things tending homeward.

My favorite America is the America of holy fools and backyard radicals, the America whose eccentric voice is seldom heard anymore in the land of Clear Channel, Disney, and Gannett. It is the America of third parties, of Greenbackers and Libertarians and village atheists and the “conservative Christian anarchist” party whose founder and only member was Henry Adams.(...)

I celebrate, I affirm old-fashioned refractory Americanism, the homeloving rebel spirit that inspires anarchists and reactionaries to save chestnut trees from the highway-wideners and rural schools from the monstrous maw of the consolidators, and leads along the irenic path of a fresh-air patriotism whose opposition to war and empire is based in simple love of country.

(...) Now, I do not claim to be the archetypal American. If my ethnic mix is typically mongrel, stretching from Italy to Ireland, so are my politics a blend of Catholic Worker, Old Right libertarian, Yorker transcendentalist, and delirious localist. So my story is singular but also strangely representative. We live in an age in which Americans by the millions have lost faith in a system that seems, at best, alien, and at worst, repressive. I, too, started in the mainstream, but I found it placidly sinister, so I took a trip down the tributaries, left and right and great plunging cataracts, till I found that my faith in the oldest, simplest, most radical America had been renewed. Robert Frost put his faith in the “insubordinate Americans,” throaty dissenters and ornery traditionalists, and this book is for and about them—those Americans who reject Empire; who cherish the better America, the real America; who cannot be broken by the Department of Homeland Security, who will not submit to the PATRIOT Act, and who will make the land acrid and bright with the stench and flame of burnt national ID cards when we—should we—cross that Orwellian pass. This is still our country, you know. Don’t let Big Brother and the imperialists take it from us."

New Hampshire

Está na altura de acreditar. É o espiríto que encontro. E por lá acreditam e estão a fazer as coisas acontecer...bottom-up.

Ron Paulian thoughts

Martin van Creveld ("catedrático en la Universidad Hebrea de Jerusalén, es uno de los principales expertos mundiales en historia y estrategia militar. Autor de "The Transformation of War (1991)"):

[Partindo do princípio que vão querer construir uma, e se o quiserem, que o conseguem nos anos mais próximos, e que, sendo uma das mais antigas grande Nação da história, se suicidará contra 200 ogivas nucleares apontadas a si. Isto porque marinha e aviação nem vê-la. Suponho que se os argumentos no buildup para o Iraque passaram, tipo "15 minutos para atacar londres" e "mini-aviões com alcance dos EUA", estes também passarão - o histerismo dizem é feminino, mas que o há a rodos há. E depois, mesmo que falhem existe sempre a evocação de ... "Muniche" and all that stuff]

El Pais: El mundo puede vivir con un Irán nuclear Estados Unidos o Israel no tendrían muchos problemas en atacar con aviones y misiles a Irán. La capacidad de defensa de este país es muy limitada. Pero tal ataque no vale la pena.

" (...) Si Estados Unidos atacara Irán -estamos hablando de un ataque con misiles de crucero y aviones tripulados, no de una invasión terrestre, para la que Washington no tiene soldados suficientes-, Irán no tendrá forma de devolver el golpe. Su mayor reacción, como la de Sadam Husein en 1991, sería atacar a Israel, lo cual explica seguramente por qué el presidente iraní Mahmud Ahmadineyad y sus generales lanzan constantes amenazas en ese sentido (Irán anunció ayer mismo que ha fabricado un nuevo misil balístico de un alcance de 2.000 kilómetros).

Aun en ese caso, tienen pocas posibilidades. Las fuerzas terrestres y navales de Irán son insignificantes para la misión que se proponen. Tal vez sea verdad que dispone de unos cuantos misiles Shihab III del alcance necesario, pero su número es limitado y su fiabilidad no está nada clara.

(...) La última opción de Irán es realizar atentados terroristas contra Occidente. Pero su impacto estratégico sería prácticamente nulo; al fin y al cabo, el 11-S, el mayor atentado de la historia, no disminuyó en absoluto la capacidad de las fuerzas armadas estadounidenses.(...)"

Já agora:

Martin van Creveld no Mises Institute:

Why War Games Do Not Work (video) Recorded 03-17-2005 at the Austrian Scholars Conference, Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama [1:25:01] Includes post-lecture Question and Answer session.

The State: Its Rise and Decline, Martin van Creveld 10/16/2000 [Artigo]

The State: Its Rise and Decline, Martin van Creveld [Livro]

O alerta de Ron Paul

O artigo do Washington Post, que o Gabriel referiu ontem, chama a atenção para o ressurgimento dos ideais libertários na América. Que o sucesso da candidatura de Ron Paul não se deve unicamente à pessoa de Ron Paul, às suas qualidades intrínsecas, aos seus valores, à sua forma de estar mas, contrariamente ao que acontece a maioria das vezes, às suas ideias. Às suas ideias libertárias.

Com o decorrer dos anos, com a grande depressão dos anos 30 (que se deveu ao proteccionismo económico), os norte-americanos foram deixando, a pouco e pouco, que o Estado se intrometesse, primeiro na economia, depois na vida social e até nas suas vidas privadas. Este processo de constante intromissão foi lento, foi sentido, mas dificilmente apreendido e parece ter atingindo um limite, com a presente administração Bush, que a América não mais quer tolerar.

Ron Paul não vencerá qualquer primária republicana; Ron Paul não ganhará a nomeação pelo partido republicano; Ron Paul, com 72 anos, uma figura frágil e sem o dinamismo de McCain e a alegria de Reagan, não será presidente dos EUA. Mas deixou uma semente. Deixou o alerta. Que é possível defender um governo limitado, a liberdade individual em todas as esferas essenciais à vida das pessoas, como sejam o ensino, o direito à reforma, ao trabalho e por aí fora. Recordou os ideais que levaram tantos a se decidir ir viver para aquele país.

Tudo isto serão conjecturas a longo prazo. A breve trecho, e de grande importância, ficará por perceber como o GOP, que mais não fez nos últimos anos que um assalto ao orçamento federal, irá digerir as grandes divergências de fundo que se estão a fazer sentir.

Descentralização

Uma quote de um comentário inserido aqui :


" (...)
Why don't people do it for the other candidates? THEY DON'T CARE! The rest of the candidates are not saying anything that anybody wants to hear! It's the message. We'd like to be free people again.

And how do they completely miss the point about the campaign being "bottom up"? Guess what, free people acting of their own free will for a common goal and in their own self-interest...um...works! Get it through your head. It's not a tool. It's not a strategy. It's not a tactic. It's how the world works. It's how the country is supposed to be run--by not being "run." As Dr. Paul says, "I don't want to run your lives. I don't want to run the economy. I don't want to run the world." It's not a "well-run" campaign. It's a "not-run" campaign. It's a message. It's a movement. Wow, you stop micro-managing a campaign and it "just works." Gee, if you'd stop micro-managing people's lives, the economy, and the world, they would all "just work." (...)
"

Momentos Americanos

Nebraska

Ron Paul and Prostitution

Prostitution is evil. It is a system predicated on debasing the human person, it is born of abuse and makes that abuse a way of life. Where it flourishes, drug abuse, crime, suicide, disease and human misery grow.

Like all evils, it hurts those engaged with it the most, but the injury doesn't end with those who engage with it but casts a larger shadow that touches everyone in the community whether it is legal or not.

Over the last several years HBO has been advancing a campaign to "normalize" prostitution through its "reality" TV show The Cathouse - a state regulated legal brothel in Nevada. The reality of Nevada's legalized prostitution and of the effects of legalized prostitution in general are well documented.

Now the owner of the Cathouse has publicly endorsed Ron Paul and is encouraging "johns" to make a donation every time they pay for sex acts. This endorsement was arranged and created by a member of the MSM, Tucker Carlson - he called up the pimp and manufactured the news story.

In the Main Stream Media's general blackout of the Ron Paul campaign, this particular story has been picked up all over the place (Google news has 99 news hits for this story).

The story is an attempt to smear Ron Paul and his supporters.

But the fact is that Ron Paul supports the decriminalization of prostitution at the Federal level. His We the People Act would remove this issue from Federal and Supreme Court jurisdiction along with a host of other socially difficult issues in accord with the 10th Amendment - 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. His legislation would make it solely a States issue an issue for the people to decide.

As Catholics, we recognize that the civil law has its foundation in morality. There is no law that does not have a moral dimension because it governs human action which is inherently laden with moral weight - the only question is whether the law is moral or immoral. This is why the Catholic Church has been an advocate for the abolition of chattel slavery for hundreds of years, it is why Holy Mother Church speaks out for the defense and respect for human life.

As such to legalize prostitution is to legalize the violation of basic human dignity.

But does Ron Paul want to legalize prostitution?

No.

He wants the States to deal with this question not the Federal Government. He is not advocating the national legalization of prostitution (something that CFRP could not support), but rather the removal of this subject matter from the Federal Court system to empower the States to deal with it.

Is this something that Catholics can support?

Yes, based on the principle of subsidiarity and prudential judgement we know that any social ill is best addressed at the most local level. We also know that when an issue is absorbed by a higher level of authority, the local level tends to become apathetic and passive because "it is no longer my problem." Compassionate liberals who vote for big government programs to solve social problems don't volunteer or give nearly as much money to charitable organizations as small government conservatives. This is because subsidiarity matters.

We also know that when the government funds a program to solve a social problem (be that in law enforcement or social welfare), that problem grows and expands and so too does the program's budget. This is because the incentives are in the wrong place. The incentive for government is to expand its power, its budget and its program, so the incentive is to expand the social problem it is addressing, not eliminate it. Compare that to the kind of local private charities who actually make a difference and have an incentive to end a difficult social problem.

For example, Emmaus Ministries walks the streets of Chicago and Houston every night to help males prostitutes get off the streets. I would rather they have my money rather than the Federal Government to help solve the problem of male prostitution. But they are struggling to keep their doors open because their donations are down due to the state of the economy. Send them a donation to keep their doors open.

At the state level prostitution should be illegal. I think that Dr. Paul might disagree stating that the government can't make you a moral person. I would agree with that idea, but remind him that Law has a major impact on forming culture because of its foundation in morality. Any law that violates the natural law is not a law at all - Martin Luther King knew this and so too did our Founding Fathers.

Ron Paul doesn't condone prostitution, he knows its effects on people and communities, but he doesn't think the Federal Government should be the one to address it, and he may even think that the States should decriminalize it too.

This is where libertarians part ways with Catholics and traditional conservatives. We recognize that the law has an intrinsic foundation in morality and the state has a duty to promote the common good, libertarians have a more reductive understanding of the law as there to preserve liberty.

What it comes down to is two different conceptions of the idea of liberty. But that is for another post.

Suffice to say that Ron Paul is running for President, and his policy on this matter is focused at the federal level. It is a matter of debate and prudential policy as to whether the federal government or local government and local voluntary associations should address this issue.

But know that as a Christian Ron Paul does not condone prostitution, he would rather have families, churches, and voluntary associations deal with this issue rather than the government.

Has Rowan Williams lost his head?

Has Rowan Williams lost his head?
What a shame that Rowan Williams doesn't base his beliefs upon the Bible, which explains why he finds Christian Zionist views as "very strange, and not at all easy to accept."

Top Anglican Derides 'Myth' That America Is A 'Chosen Nation'
(CNSNews.com) – In an interview with a British Muslim publication, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, a longstanding opponent of the Iraq war, has taken his criticism of U.S. foreign policy to a new level, saying the U.S. has lost the moral high ground since 9/11...

***********

Anglican scam artist Rowan Williams continues to deceive and mislead the masses, pretending to be Christian while preaching his self-righteous and idolatrous ideas. What a shame that Rowan Williams doesn't base his beliefs upon the Bible, which explains why he finds Christian Zionist views as "very strange, and not at all easy to accept."

Those who humbly submit to the Word of God, rather than insist on their own ways (proud and stubborn), who acknowledge Father knows best, learn to adjust their attitudes, actions and beliefs to get in sync with the Scriptures. It's called conversion and it's a life-long process:

Isaiah 55

7 Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the LORD,
And He will have mercy on him;
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
8 “ For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD.
9 “ For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Rowan's rants against Christian Zionism included an attack on the special relationship between the United States and Israel, deriding "the chosen-nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God's purpose for humanity."

If Williams read and believed the Bible, without traditional blinders, he would see that the nation and People of Israel (all Twelve Tribes of Israel) are instrumental in God's plan of salvation for all mankind. The Bible is an ethnocentric book, with a focus on the family of Jacob-Israel, however politically-incorrect.

Rowan's sloppy swill should give further reason for folks still steeped in Anglicanism, still wallowing in the mire of traditional Roman error, to distance themselves from such Babylon and return to the Faith once delivered to Jerusalem.

It appears Williams has lost his head attempting to appease his Muslim audience. Perhaps that explains why he didn't decry the deplorable situation upon Jerusalem's Temple Mount that suffers under Nazi-Muslim occupation, daily discriminating against Christians and Jews, illegally forbidding them to pray or read the Bible where Jesus prayed and taught.

May Rowan Williams wholeheartedly repent and seek forgiveness from both God and his fellow British-Israelites and Jews.

A House of Prayer for All Peoples?

Christian Zionists, Jews, and Israel

Not All Twelve Tribes of Israel are Jewish?

The English-speaking nations of White Israelites

The Precedent for the Ron Paul Dollar

On Wednesday, November 14, 2007, federal agents raided the Indianapolis headquarters of a company called NORFED, the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and Internal Revenue Code, and seized its holdings of gold, silver, and copper, much of it in the form of coins bearing the likeness of US Congressman Dr. Ron Paul...

read more | digg story

Outra vez as armas Parte2!!! Assaltos em Portugal!!!

"Mais de metade dos portugueses inquiridos pela Deco (Associação para a Defesa do Consumidor) que já foram vítimas de algum crime não fizeram queixa à polícia. E seis em cada 10 que participaram afirmaram ter sido em vão. Estes são alguns números apurados pela Deco, após um inquérito a 2400 pessoas sobre a criminalidade e as suas consequências, e que demonstram existir um "cepticismo generalizado com a acção da polícia". O estudo foi realizado ainda em Espanha, Bélgica e Itália e da comparação resulta que só neste último país a falta de confiança nas autoridades é superior.A descrença nos resultados, o excesso de burocracia ou a desvalorização do sucedido pela própria vítima são os motivos mais invocados para justificar a não participação. Quando o fazem, as críticas passam a ser outras. Queixam-se das infra-estruturas pouco cómodas nas esquadras, da falta de humanismo dos agentes e da incapacidade para oferecerem determinadas respostas, como o transporte até casa. Sobre a própria actuação da polícia, a avaliação também está longe de ser positiva: 58 por cento disse não ter visto quaisquer resultados e 38 por cento garantiu que os agentes "pouco ou nada fizeram para identificar o agressor". Tudo somado, na hora de atribuir uma nota, GNR, PSP e Polícia Judiciária não receberam mais de 3 valores, numa escala de 1 a 10. É a pior apreciação dos países analisados pelas associações congéneres da Deco e cujos resultados serão publicados na edição de Dezembro da revista ProTeste.Vários crimesAo todo, quatro em cada dez inquiridos de uma amostra representativa da população entre os 18 e os 74 anos responderam ter sofrido um crime nos últimos cinco anos. A maioria traduziu-se em atentados contra o património (ver infografia), com as vítimas a perderem uma média de 1000 euros por incidente. Sendo que os roubos acontecem sobretudo à porta de casa. Para além dos danos materiais, os inquiridos admitiram que passar por este tipo situação afecta o bem-estar geral e a rotina diária. Revolta, medo, dificuldade em dormir e irritabilidade são os principais "sintomas pós-traumáticos" que, para um quarto das vítimas, persistem um ano depois da ocorrência. Entre os crimes que mais marcas deixam figuram, naturalmente, a violação, mas também o roubo da carteira com violência, agressões físicas e os confrontos no trânsito.Há ainda outros crimes que se distinguem por provocar níveis de violência psicológica muito elevados. É o caso do racismo e a ameaça, chantagem ou extorsão. Mas apesar do impacto de todas estas situações, apenas sete por cento das vítimas recorreram a apoio psicológico. Mais insegurançaAinda que os níveis de criminalidade em Portugal sejam inferiores aos dos outros três países em análise, o sentimento de insegurança aparenta ser superior. Praticamente uma em cada dez pessoas admitiu andar com objectos de defesa pessoal, como navalhas e outras armas brancas, quando anda na rua à noite. Entre dois a três por cento dos inquiridos contou fazer-se acompanhar de uma arma de fogo, spray de gás pimenta ou pistola de alarme. A este propósito, a Deco lembra que a incidência de armas de fogo em Portugal é "três vezes superior à de Espanha".Mas são de outro tipo as medidas preventivas mais comuns. Para proteger a casa e os bens, por exemplo, os portugueses preferem o cão de guarda. A seguir, mas a uma distância considerável, é referido o alarme e a arma de fogo. Na rua, os inquiridos usam como estratégia evitar levar muito dinheiro ou objectos valiosos. À noite, metade tranca as portas do carro enquanto conduz e 30 por cento evitam andar de transportes públicos. Neste cenário, o estudo concluiu que a "insegurança em Portugal é superior à dos outros países do estudo" e que 65 por cento dos inquiridos disseram "sentir-se menos seguros na rua à noite do que há cinco anos". A generalidade das pessoas pediram mais vigilância e a associação deixa um apelo ao Ministério da Administração Interna para que torne os serviços da polícia "mais eficientes" e para que, em colaboração com o Ministério da Justiça, adopte "medidas para uma justiça mais célere."

27.11.2007, Isabel Leiria.

fonte: http://jornal.publico.clix.pt/ .

Entrevista - página resumo

Uma excelente página resumo da candidatura de Ron Paul.

Este vídeo está lá:

Jerusalem's on the chopping block

Paint Israel black: Jews to lose Jerusalem!
Israel's rejection of their 1967 miracle will result in their loss of Jerusalem. Let Israel lower its flag and mourn and paint the country BLACK since Orange was crushed under "just following orders" soldiers doing their sworn enemies' dirty work....

Woe to Ariel! (Jerusalem to suffer EU occupation)
Isaiah 29:1
Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt!
Carl Sandburg, an American writer warned: "If America forgets where she came from...if she listens to the deniers and mockers, then will begin the rot and dissolution." The same principle applies to our Jewish brethren in Israel.

Mount Zion under siege: Who will be king of the mountain?
The Vatican has its evil eye on Jerusalem! What better place to start their siege against the Holy City than Mt. Zion? Watch for them to fortify their position and launch an all-out attack to undermine Israeli sovereignty, enlisting Jewish traitors and the international community.

Grand Master turns up the heat on Jerusalem
The cauldron that is Jerusalem is having the heat turned up by a series of planned events, the concerted efforts of Roman wolves in sheep's clothing, orchestrated by the Vatican. The Roman Catholic Cult, the Babylonian Mystery religion, covets the Holy City and aims on wresting control of Ariel (Jerusalem's nickname) from Israeli sovereignty by any means necessary.

UN Resolution 181: Blueprint of the Beast?
As Hitler clearly outlined his plans in Mein Kampf (and furiously put them into practice his first opportunity), so the United Nations passed an ominous resolution in 1947 concerning the fate of Jerusalem: UN Resolution 181 demands the Holy City submit to the status of an "international city." That's a glorified term for ENEMY OCCUPATION!

From Toledo to Jerusalem
Why would a blond, "non-Jewish" American want to emmigrate to Israel? What's the connection? Especially when so few Jews in the United States are willing to make the move. What force would drive someone to travel to Israel 11 times, serve in 8 kibbutzim and even stay there during the Persian Gulf War, complete with gas mask, with his room designated as cheder atoom - "sealed room" - that other volunteers had to run to whenever the eerie sirens sounded that another Scud Missile was headed for the Promised Land?

International opposition to Jerusalem's liberation
The world will oppose the Return of the King of the Jews, Israel's King, but the Prophets foretell such vain opposition will literally melt away. Both the Bible and the "New Testament" reveal demonic international opposition will be raised against King Messiah to foolishly fight against His return to Jerusalem, liberating it from Gentile EU occupation. They will be history - in a flash!

US Congressman Protests Possible Division of Jerusalem

Christians and Jews from around the world could find themselves praying in the crosshairs of terrorist snipers if the eastern sections of Jerusalem are given over to Palestinian control, a visiting U.S. congressman said here.

US Congressman Protests Possible Division of Jerusalem

The Land of the Free, the Home of the Braves

"Thanks to, well, just about every member of the House of Representatives, a bill that eviscerates free speech and empowers the government to deem anything an "extremist belief system" is up for vote in the senate. Once an "extremist belief system" is declared, the associated "terrorists" shall be stripped of US citizenship, tortured, and/or executed with no habeas corpus rights and no ability to challenge, even in the supreme court.(...)

Also, I'd like to thank Chad from Austin, TX for informing me that this bill was quickly pushed through on the day that Ron Paul was in New Hampshire filing the necessary paperwork required to be present on the presidential ballot." Homegrown Libertarianism Prevention Act of 2007

Nota: Como sabemos bem, para muitos a história da estratégia militar começa em ...Muniche, o tal sítio onde Polacos e Hungaros conseguiram como Hitler, uma reivindicação territorial sobre a Checoeslováquia. Os Polacos que se recusaram a dar passagem aos Soviéticos para enfrentar Hitler no meio das hesitações dos Franceses e Ingleses, ainda de moral menor com os problemas dos alemães que sobraram espalhados pós-Versailles. Bem, a coisa não acabou muito bem para a Polónia, nem para os Checos nem para Húngaros.

Mas seria bom recordar que Hitler e os Nazis serviram-se dos meios constitucionais de excepção à sua mercê depois do incêndio do Reichtag (provocado, é hoje assente, não por uma conspiração nazi mas simplesmente por um comunista). Até a lista de pessoas a serem presas não foi preparada por Goering mas sim pelo lider social-democrata seu antecessor, irónico como sempre.

O anti-comunismo tinha sólidas razões para o ser, maiores até do que no pós-WWII. Na Europa Central sabia-se bem (ou melhor) o que tinha acontecido na URSS de Estaline (nos anos 30). Não que isso tenha impedido Estaline de ter sido um "aliado" e acabado com metade da Europa (e invadiu a Polónia 15 dias depois de Hitler).

Hoje temos o anti-terrorismo. E os Estados estão a artilhar-se "legalmente" contra o terrorismo. Contra tudo que venham a declarar como sendo terrorismo, que um dia saberemos (certo como a história repetir-se) será tudo que ponha em causa a "razão de Estado".

em crescendo

«lib•er•tar•ian».
Ron Paul em destaque no Washington Post.

Ron Paul is Best Catholic Choice - US Bishops' Faithful Citizenship Guidelines

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been rated the Best Choice for Catholic Voters, based on an independent analysis by The Defend Life blog of Maryland. The analysis used the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' criteria in Faithful Citizenship - its guide for Catholic voters - to rate the various candidate's platforms and has determined that Ron Paul's positions are most compatible with the USCCB standards.

Using a point system that gave greater weight for "non-negotiable" issues such as abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and gay marriage, the analysis lined up all the candidates to see where they stand on a broad array of issues.

Ron Paul (R) scored highest with a score of 99, with Alan Keyes (R) following with 70, and Mike Huckabee (R) third with 69. Dead last was the purportedly Catholic Rudy Giuliani (R) with -28 and Barack Obama (D) with -15. Hilary Clinton (D) scored a -11 and Fred Thompson (R) scored only a 4.

The Catholic vote in America is critical for the 2008 presidential election. Some have argued that Catholics are statistically invisible as voters, that they divide along the same partisan tribal lines as most Americans.

This is not true.

The last election was won in Ohio due largely to the presence of Catholic voters who significantly voted against John Kerry because of his culture of death platform and his rationally inconsistent statements such as, "I believe life begins at conception, but I can't impose my Catholic beliefs on others as president." Such idiocy was not going to wash over faithful and informed Catholics.

After this election, the Democrats began a deliberate "values voters" offensive to cloak these same culture of death positions in a rhetoric of "faith and values." The Democrats haven't changed their positions, they have just massaged their rhetoric and scheduled more speeches at churches.

The Republicans have shown their true colors as well. Last election was all about values, but then the neo-conservative radicals in the party have such a grip that the party has shrunk and they have given the electorate Rudy - the most terrible candidate on values - because he is a war hawk neo-con who will continue to wage an unjust war.

So the Catholic vote is important. But more importantly, Catholic voting principles are what matter. These principles are immutable and the best source for learning about them is the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

A number of faithful Catholics (and not so faithful Catholics) have published Voter's Guides to help inform the Catholic population as to the Catholic framework for choosing a candidate. In that same spirit, the United State Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote "Faithful Citizenship." As a document of the USCCB, Faithful Citizenship does not have magisterial status along the same lines as a document from the Holy Father, or one of the Congregations in the Curia, or even one from a bishop writing to his flock.

Often bishop conference documents are criticised for being unhelpful, bland and inconclusive. A bishop's conference does not have ecclesial status and the process of creating a collective document results in undermining the authority that the Church truly has. Even Cardinal Ratzinger has noted that the bishops' conference in Germany during the rise of the Nazis had the effect of watering down and muting the strength of the church's opposing voice to this evil.

So in making reference to the Faithful Citizenship document, it is done with a hefty grain of salt and light because true to form the document tends to lack both.

The Defend Life analysis can be read in detail here:

http://defendlife.blogspot.com/2007/11/evaluation-of-presidential-candidates.html

Off topic ou talvez não

Brit woman with a "no kids" policy aborted her baby to reduce her carbon footprint.

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," Vernelli told the Mail, adding she believes bringing new life into the world only adds to the problem.

(Via Environmentalabortionism, Karen DeCoster)

Lew Rockwell on National Review on Ron Paulism

LRC Blog: "Ramesh Ponnuru is right to notice a sea-change. Libertarianism is, as Murray Rothbard insisted, a political philosophy, period. It is not a cultural or lifestyle movement. Still less does it require an anti-religious or anti-bourgeois orientation.

One great side-effect of the Ron Paul movement is to make this clear. People of faith are welcome.

Murray, a pro-Catholic agnostic of Jewish heritage, held that libertarianism would never get anywhere politically so long as it was associated with hatred of religion, as in some of classical liberalism or modern Randianism. After all, he pointed out, the vast majority of Americans--like the vast majority of people in all societies at all times--are religious.

Come one, come all to the Ron Paul movement: Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists, Baha'i, Unitarians, Ethical Culture, agnostics, atheists--everyone."

Freedom Under Siege (12)

A liberdade de escolha corresponde à maximização do incentivo à produção, pois assume que podemos ficar com o fruto do nosso trabalho. Numa sociedade livre, um indivíduo tira partido de decisões sensatas e frugais e sofre as consequências de maus julgamentos e hábitos prejudiciais. Não cabe ao Estado garantir ou tributar o sucesso nem compensar aqueles que falham. O indivíduo tem de ser responsável por todas as suas decisões. O facto de alguns sofrerem por acontecimentos que estão fora do seu controlo não pode justificar o uso da violência contra terceiros sob a fachada da “ajuda”. O facto de alguém se encontrar em dificuldades não lhe dá o direito de roubar os seus vizinhos e não podemos perdoar o Estado quando o faz em nome dele. Assegurar o bem-estar geral significa manter as condições gerais de liberdade. Não deve em circunstância alguma ser usado para justificar bem-estares específicos ou qualquer transferência de bens de uma pessoa para outra.
Uma sociedade livre permite o egoísmo mesquinho mas também a compaixão e o altruísmo. A ganância, quando associada à força ou à fraude, não é aceitável. Uma sociedade livre tem mais possibilidades de sobreviver se demonstrar voluntariamente compaixão para com os desafortunados do que se ignorar os seus pobres. O egoísmo saudável associado ao sentido de responsabilidade para com a família e amigos é muito superior a um Estado-Providência construído tendo por base um altruísmo cego e a redistribuição forçada de riqueza.Uma sociedade que tenha em elevada estima o princípio dos direitos individuais é superior em todos os níveis a uma sociedade que distorça o significado de liberdade e permita a existência da coerção governamental.

Freedom Under Siege, página 39

Além de tudo o que Ron Paul escreve no texto acima, importa ainda salientar que uma sociedade dominada pelo Estado-Providência isenta os cidadãos de qualquer responsabilidade social directa (aliás, dificulta mesmo, visto que lhes extorque previamente a verba que estes poderiam usar nesse sentido, caso assim desejassem), colocando nos ombros do Estado essa função e acabando por destruir o próprio sentido de responsabilidade individual e a verdadeira solidariedade. O cidadão, mais pobre e menos responsável, não sente como sua a missão de apoiar os mais necessitados, um novo monopólio moral do Estado, que a implementa com a habitual burocracia sem coração, de forma ineficaz e esbanjadora.

www.davidbenariel.org

www.davidbenariel.org

A Work in progress

New migrant jobs madness

Daily Express

New migrant jobs madness

• Full Story Here

Employers will break race relations laws if they refuse to consider foreigners for jobs, even if the candidates do not speak English, the Home Office warned yesterday.

*******************

British-Israelite nations are nuts
Only in the White Israelite nations do we witness such suicidal madness. God help us to remember our Hebrew roots and biblical responsibilities and have sanity restored!

*********

The English-speaking nations of White Israelites
Church of God literature often speaks of the English-speaking nations in prophecy. Does that mean every English speaker in those countries is a literal descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (whose name was changed to Israel)....

Stop abusing the memory of Yitzhak Rabin

Stop abusing the memory of Yitzhak Rabin

By ISI LEIBLER
He displayed contempt toward radicals who were steering the Labor Party toward post-Zionism.

****************

It's good Isi Leibler helps to set the record straight about Rabin and Oslo, but why did he perpetuate the BIG LIE that Yigal Amir is solely responsible for Rabin's murder? The bloody Knesset knows better and yet remains deaf to the blood of Rabin that still cries out for justice.

Bloody Knesset

Will Shas betray Israel for Shimon Peres?

Shimon Peres: Death Knell for Israel?

7 videos that will put Shimon Peres in jail

7 videos that will put Shimon Peres in jail

*The Yitzhak Rabin Murder Video"

* Yigal Amir - police interrogation

* Health Minister Efraim Sneh - Nov 4, 1995

* Dr Barabash - Nov 4, 1995

* Shimon Peres - Nov 5, 1995

* Shimon Peres - Israel's new Prime Minister

* Miriam Oren-
an Eyewitness to the Fraud

Pools

Se até há bem pouco tempo Ron Paul não parecia sequer nas sondagens (note-se que feitas por recurso a entrevistas para telefone fixo), ou então não descolava dos 2%, eis que agora surge já com 5% na Flórida, 6% no Iowa e 7% no Nevada.

E os 9 M Usd já lá vão...

Accusations against Herbert W. Armstrong

Some indulge in spreading sexual rumors about Herbert W. Armstrong, attacking the messenger since they can't refute the plain truth of the Bible he courageously taught.

Those who are guilty of gossiping about Herbert W. Armstrong will have "hell" to pay, if they remain unrepentant. Those guilty of spreading dirt must answer: Do you believe everything you hear or read? If it were true, why wasn't Mr. Armstrong ever indicted or convicted for it? Those are some serious accusations.

15 Accusations and Truthful Responses about Herbert W. Armstrong

Those who truly are Christians understand that the Christian thing to do, especially in light of the fact that the worst accusations against Herbert W. Armstrong would be thrown out of court, dismissed for lack of evidence, is to give Herbert W. Armstrong the benefit of the doubt, as we would want, knowing we're to love our neighbor as ourselves, and trust that if and wherever sin MIGHT have occurred, Mr. Armstrong repented of it and rest assured that the blood of Christ is more than sufficient to cover him.

It becomes clear that Satan stirs up hateful individuals who can't refute the truth of what Mr. Armstrong taught so they engage in diversionary tactics and attack the messenger. We're not ignorant of such demonic devices.

Romans 8:1

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus...

Romans 8:33-34

Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

Série "Mozart was a Red"

Farewell Address, President George Washington: "overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."

Europe for Ron Paul

Dias 15 e 16 de Dezembro

MEETING CALL

STRASBOURG, FRANCE

15-16 DECEMBER 2007

Saturday, 15 December, conference to meet each other, network, brainstorm on how we can help the Ron Paul Revolution, and organize.

Sunday, 16 December. "THE STRASBOURG TEA PARTY"
(...)

The theme of the meeting will be to signal to our American friends that the Ron Paul Revolution is also sweeping Europe.Our immediate goal is to provide a first venue for Ron Paul supporters to meet and get to know each other.

(...)

Mark your calendars now, reserve rooms, and plan to attend the first Europe-wide Ron Paul meeting in Strasbourg, France, 15-16 December 2007

PS: Aparecemos no vídeo ;)

The Political Earthquake

The rumble of thousands of people shouting "Ron Paul" is waking up thousands more. And there will be Ron Paul supporters among the delegates to the Republican Convention to help nominate Ron Paul as the next President of the USA.

read more digg story

USA Today Ron Paul Ad

To be a Jew...

To be a Jew can mean to be an ethnic descendant of the Tribe of Judah or of the Kingdom of Judah (which comprised portions of Benjamin, Levi and Judah - even some Simeon),
and/or
To be a member of the religion of Judaism.

When I speak of Jews, I'm referring to the first definition - not strictly members of the religion of Judaism that has every race in its ranks. I've spoken out against those "Jews" pretending to be ethnic Joes, etc.

Michael's Freund's fraud: Indian converts pretending to be Joes!

Paul was a Jew by his association with those of the former Kingdom of Judah, and by their religion. He still claimed to be, present tense, a Pharisee - but with a new and improved understanding. Yeshua and the early Church of God, those ethnic Jews and Israelites in it, were also Pharisees.

The Pharisees

Open Letter to Catholics

In support of Ron Paul.

In the tradition of Walter Block’s Open Letter to the Jewish Community in Behalf of Ron Paul and Laurence Vance’s Open Letter to the Protestant Community in Behalf of Ron Paul, I’d like to say a few words to my fellow Catholics.

Never in my life have I felt as strongly about a presidential candidate – or about any politician, for that matter – as I do about Dr. Ron Paul, Republican congressman from Texas. I’ve gone from being someone so disgusted with politics that I can’t bear to read about it to being a political junkie, avidly following the activities and successes of this great man.

As an American historian, I am not aware of any congressman in American history whose voting record is so stellar, and so consistently in accord with the Constitution.

Beyond that, Ron Paul is not a panderer. He’ll speak to an interest group and tell them to their faces that he has opposed and will continue to oppose funding their pet projects. Lobbyists know they’re wasting their money if they try to wine and dine him. He recently spoke before the national convention of an organization aimed at protecting the interests of a particular ethnic group, and began by saying: "Somebody asked me whether I had a special speech for your group, and I said, no, it’s the same speech I give everywhere."

Already by 1981, Ron Paul had earned the highest rating ever given by the National Taxpayers Union, received the highest rating from the Council for a Competitive Economy, and won the Liberty Award from the American Economic Council for being "America’s outstanding defender of economic and personal freedom."

Dr. Paul, who entered Congress in 1976 and returned to his medical practice in 1984, picked up where he left off when he returned to Congress in the 1996 election. I do not expect to see his like again.

He is also a good and decent man, who really is what he appears to be when you hear him speak. As a physician at an inner-city hospital, Ron Paul provided medical care to anyone who needed it, regardless of ability to pay. He never accepted money from Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to provide free care instead. That’s what people in a free society are supposed to do: be responsible for themselves, and then lend their assistance to those who are vulnerable and alone.

Ron Paul is a candidate who doesn’t insult his listeners’ intelligence, who answers the questions he is asked, and who doesn’t simply say whatever his audience wants to hear. And unlike other major names in the race, Ron Paul doesn’t have to run away from his record, which reveals an unswerving commitment to peace, freedom, and prosperity that is second to none in all of American history.

Although I would have supported Ron Paul back before I converted to Catholicism, I think Catholics will like what they see when they examine his record. Over at Defend Life, Ron Paul comes out decisively on top in a study of the candidates’ positions on the issues according to the guidelines recently established by the United States bishops. (If anything, I think this study understates Paul’s compatibility with Catholic teaching.)

On education and home schooling, Ron Paul is the clear winner. Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter all voted for the execrable No Child Left Behind Act, and Governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have both come out in favor of it. Ron Paul – as did the Republican Party itself not so long ago – opposes any federal role in education, which is the responsibility of parents and local communities.

In other words, Ron Paul believes in a little something called subsidiarity, which happens to be a central principle of Catholic social thought. Subsidiarity holds that all social functions should be carried out by the most local unit possible, as opposed to the dehumanizing alternative whereby distant bureaucratic structures are routinely and unthinkingly entrusted with more and more responsibilities for human well-being.

On home schooling, Ron Paul has proposed legislation giving tax credits worth thousands of dollars to reimburse the educational expenses of home-schooling parents, as well as those of parents who send their children to other kinds of schools. What presidential candidate speaks like this?

Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family. By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family Education Freedom Act will not only improve America’s education, it will restore a parent’s right to choose how best to educate one’s own child, a fundamental freedom that has been eroded by the increase in federal education expenditures and the corresponding decrease in the ability of parents to provide for their children’s education out of their own pockets.

When it comes to abortion, Ron Paul – an obstetrician/gynecologist who has delivered over 4,000 babies – has been a consistent opponent of Roe v. Wade, which he rightly considers unconstitutional. But he has no interest in the failed strategy of the past 35 years whereby we sit and wait for a remedy in the form of good Supreme Court justices. His HR 300 would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, as per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. That would overturn Roe by a simple congressional majority.

Then we could see who is sincere on the issue, and who is just exploiting it for votes. Few in either party really want to see the abortion status quo overturned, since it means they can’t scare their supporters into sending them as much money anymore.

Upon the Pope’s death in 2005, Ron Paul paid tribute to John Paul’s consistent defense of life. On another occasion, he offered an additional tribute, of the sort few politicians would utter:
To the secularists, this was John Paul II’s unforgivable sin – he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly.

Speaking of John Paul II, it is important to remember that that pope was a strong opponent of the U.S. government’s attack on Iraq, sending his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, to Washington shortly before the commencement of hostilities in order to insist to the president that such a war would be unjust. The Pope’s first comments after the war broke out were these: "When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society."

Before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked if a U.S. government attack on Iraq would be just. "Certainly not," came the reply. He predicted that "the damage would be greater than the values one wishes to save."

After the war ended, Ratzinger said: "It was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction…. It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world." "There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq," he elsewhere observed. "To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war.’"

Hundreds of thousands lost their lives in this obviously avoidable war, a war that was based on falsehoods that we would have laughed at if they’d been uttered by Leonid Brezhnev. But since they came from the White House we cheer as for a football team, and duck the appalling material and moral consequences. A country that (by regional standards) once had an excellent health care system, opportunities for women, liberal gun and alcohol laws, and – yes – lots of immigrants, was turned into a disease-ridden basket case, filled with dead, wounded, and malnourished children, for no good reason.

That’s just wrong, and it isn’t "liberal" to say so.

Likewise, Ratzinger/Benedict is not a "liberal" for opposing the war. He is a moral conservative, but a man whose conservatism is more mature than the sloganeering jingoism of so much of what passes for conservatism in today’s America. Ron Paul is an equally sober and serious statesman, and for that reason was one of very few Republicans with the courage and the foresight to oppose this economic and moral fiasco from the very start.

It is especially satisfying to learn that in the second quarter of 2007, Ron Paul received more donations from active duty and retired military personnel than any other Republican candidate. By the third quarter, he was receiving more than any other presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican. Want to support the troops? Then support Ron Paul.

My main argument to you, though, is not a specifically Catholic one. It’s one that should resonate with anybody who values honesty, integrity, and decency. Ron Paul is a good man who believes in justice and the Constitution, and who cannot be bought. His ten terms in Congress have proven that again and again.

And that is why the media fears him. Unlike the rest of them, Ron Paul is unowned.
Now every establishment hack out there wants you to vote for one of the business-as-usual candidates. Are you really so happy with the establishment that its endorsement or cajoling means anything to you? If anything, it should make us all the more interested in Ron Paul – the one candidate the establishment fears, since they know their game is up if he should win.
Far from being in the unhappy position of a candidate whose children won’t even speak to him, Ron Paul is fortunate to have family members all over the campaign trail on his behalf. He has been married to the same woman for 50 years, and has been blessed with five children and eighteen grandchildren. There are some family values.

Just think: for once, you don’t have to choose the lesser among evils. You can finally vote for someone. You can not only be happy, but actually honored, to cast your vote for Ron Paul.
But don’t just vote for him. Find out about him, and get out there and spread the word.