Blowback and an American Father

Blowback and an American Father

Blowback:

 : Blowback is the espionage term for unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government.”

Consequence:

 “The relation between a result and its cause”, “something that follows as a result”

  MSword – Encarta

Reaction:

 “A reaction or effect resulting from an action or cause, usually a negative reaction”

  MSword – Encarta

 Regardless of what you may believe, blowback is real and it does have severe consequences for our country. I will do my best to explain it in a way that I can understand it; because if I can understand it, then anyone can.

 Listed below are a summary of events that I have looked into over the years and their consequences. I have only listed those that have a clear and direct intervention with a US hand. There are many theories about wars and attacks over the last two hundred years, but I will not go into those here. I challenge you to check these facts and seek the truth for yourself. All I can do is plant the seed, it is up to you to water and nurture the tree. Once you do, I know you will agree that our foreign policy needs to change.

1)      We invaded a land and began to consume its resources, develop the land and kill and displace the indigenous people. Blowback came in the form of:

·        Death to thousands of American people at the hands of the Native Americans.

2)      We infringed on the rights of the several states to determine the morality and legality of slavery. Blowback came in the form of:

·        Secession of several states from the union.

·        A Civil war with close to one million deaths.

·        The assassination of President Lincoln.

3)      We directed the CIA to support an insurgency of rebels to overthrow the Iranian regime in 1953/54. We set up the Shah Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi who later, was overthrown by the people in an effort to regain their democracy and freedom. Blowback came in the form of:

·        Iranian nationals attacking the U.S. Embassy holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. The matter was resolved when the U.S. and Iran signed the Algerian Accord.

4)      In 1958 the U.S. installed medium range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads in Russia’s backyard, Turkey. In 1961 we installed similar missiles in the UK. All of these missiles had the capability of delivering their payload to Moscow. In 1961/62 the U.S. launched a covert attack against Cuba in an attempt to over throw the regime of Fidel Castro; this is known as the Bay of Pigs/Operation mongoose. The operation failed and was an embarrassment to JFK and his administration. Blowback came in the form of:

·  The Cuban Missile Crisis. I am sure everyone has heard of this at least once, but it is basically where the U.S. & Russia and perhaps the world, barely avoided destruction by nuclear war. This problem was solved when Kennedy and Khrushchev picked up the phone and talked to each other. What a concept!

·  In 1963 President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. It is known that Oswald was a communist sympathizer having lived in Russia for some time. It is believed the assassination was orchestrated by Communist Russia and Cuba in retaliation for the Cuban missile crisis and other events.

5)      In the mid 1950’s the U.S. refused to sign the Geneva Accords which would have prevented them from engaging in any political activity with respect to Vietnam. It also created a ceasefire between France and Vietnam. The U.S. could not do this because they were supporting the Vietnamese Prime minister Diem (who later installed himself as President) with intelligence and foreign aid (Operation Plan 34-Alpha,). When they grew tired of Deim’s regime and found they could no longer adequately control him, they refused to provide intelligence or stop a coup by various generals and political rivals on Deim’s regime (1963). The U.S. had already been covertly attacking NV from the sea and was complicit in the aid of the SV in military actions (1961). Blowback came in the form of:

·        The USS Maddox Incident

·        The Vietnam war

6)      The Iran-Contra Affair took place in the mid eighties. A terrorist group captured six American citizens and held them hostage. They wanted the complete withdrawal of Israel from the Golan Heights and probably one or two other things. The U.S. said no and things deteriorated. We ended up selling arms through Israel to some terrorists, military persons and the Iranian government (they were not an enemy at this time, but they were not exactly friendly to us either) and sending some of the proceeds to fund the Contras in Central America. We wanted to overthrow the communist government of Nicaragua, but we couldn’t just march in and do it. We also could not directly fund the Contras due to the Boland Amendment. So we gave millions of dollars to a cruel military force and in exchange we were able to entrench ourselves even deeper into the drug trade of Central and South America. Blowback came in the form of:

·        Arming terrorist nations and persons that would later use those arms against our allies and soldiers.

·        Expanding the drug trade and increasing trafficking to the U.S.

·        Creating the crack cocaine epidemic in America that ultimately led to a renewed commitment in the war on drugs, by incarcerating blacks, Hispanics and other minorities including poor white people, at a disproportionately high rate.

·        Establishing a dialogue with terrorist organizations that we would later cultivate into a partnership against communism.

7)      Afghanistan vs. Communist Russia. Over the course of the ten year war the U.S.S.R. waged in Afghanistan (1979-1989) the U.S.’s involvement in the war remained covert and clandestine. We could not allow communist Russia to gain a foot hold in a land so rich with natural resources and we could not allow the region to become “destabilized”. We not only funded the start up Al-Qaeda network, but we established training camps for their fighters and provided them with arms, most notably, the stinger missiles. We were helping them under the guise of freedom for there land, but we had other reasons as well. We needed to make sure that Russia did not gain control of this area as we had designs on it ourselves. We also needed to make sure that the war lasted as long as it could, as we were undermining Russia’s economy during this time. When the Russians finally retreated the Mujahadeen celebrated a great victory and praised their new friends and allies, the Americans. The victory was short lived though as we started to establish embassies in their holy land. We effectively cut them off from funding and arms and for all intents and purposes deemed them a threat. Having no need for the Mujahadeen any longer we left them to hang in the wind on one or two occasions. Blowback came in the form of:

·        Thousands of new enemy combatants and terrorists were now trained in the art of war by the U.S. military and CIA.

·        Terrorists were now supplied with modern weapons and bomb making technologies.

·        In 1992 a hotel was bombed in an attempt to kill U.S. soldiers en-route to Somalia. Two persons were killed, none of them Americans.

·        In 1993 the World Trade Center towers were attacked with a car bomb, killing six people and injuring over a thousand.

·        In 1998 the U.S. embassy in East Africa was bombed killing over 300 persons.

·        In 2000 the USS COLE was bombed killing 17 U.S. soldiers.

·        In 2001 the Twin Towers were again attacked and destroyed killing around 3000 people and destroying three buildings.

8)      After the war in Afghanistan Russia could barely afford to keep its government running. The U.S. interests had been undermining its economy for sometime and the prolonged war in Afghanistan all but ensured the downfall of communist Russia. The Gorbachev-Reagan “Tear down this wall” speech was nothing if not show. Russia by this time had become largely insolvent and there was no way for it to maintain its empire (Hmm, sounds familiar). The fall had to be carefully orchestrated so as not to create a panic in the mother land as well as in the rest of the world. The next few years in Russia were extremely difficult for the average citizen as the economy all but ground to a halt. Blowback from the fall of the U.S.S.R came in the form of:

·        Thousands of arms sold on the black market, many going to terrorist organizations.

·        Thousands of troops and scientists now “for hire” to anyone who could pay.

·        Complete destabilization of the region and states resulting in far more “terrorist” organizations and activities than before.

·        Our “enemies” had now multiplied and were better armed than they had previously been.

·        Genocide and ethnic cleansings took place in more than one Slavic nation formerly in the U.S.S.R.

9)      Saddam Hussein and Iraq: In the early sixties, the U.S. was covertly undermining the regime of General Abdul Karim Qassim. The General has successfully deposed a regime that was loyal to the west. After asserting the country’s sovereignty and threatening American interests in Iraq, The Kennedy administration sought to have him removed. The CIA recruited various persons in the Ba’athist party, Hussein being one, and sought to instigate a regime change. Several years after the initial coup, Hussein came to power. The U.S. had not been in communication with the new regime for some time, but now sought new relations with the new president of Iraq. The U.S. sold him weapons including, guns, ammo, viruses, chemical agents fro use in civilian and military applications, nuclear technologies and a host of other items. I am sure we also provided funding to his regime. The U.S. allowed the Attack on Iran and was complicit in the deaths of over 5000 kurds through chemical and biological agents. When the U.S. found it could no longer control Saddam in a satisfactory manner, they sought to tie him to the terrorists believed responsible for 9/11 and WMD’s in that region. The U.S. Invaded Iraq in 2003 with the ultimate goal of deposing Saddam and gaining control over the region. Blowback came in the form of:

·        Terrorist persons now actively engaged in Iraq where none had been previously.

·        The Iraq war

·        The loss of thousands of American soldiers in this war.

·        Increased agitation of Iran and various other Arab/Muslim nations as to our presence in the region.

10)  Due to the U.S.’s overwhelming and insidious interventions across the globe, lots and lots of people are pissed off at us. They now hate our government and therefore hate America. They cannot kill our leaders so they kill us. This is blowback. This is the consequence of our military campaign, of our meddling in the affairs of other nations and our constant nation building and “peace keeping”. The reaction of an attacked nation or people is to attack the aggressor and in case you did not notice, the U.S. has long since stopped merely defending this country; they have been actively attacking other nations. What we now see at home in the from of blowback is:

·        The Patriot Act

·        The National Defense Authorization Act (2011)

·        SOPA

·        The beginning of a Police State:

I have heard many people talk of the “terrorists” and the reasons why they hate us and want to kill us. I can’t help but laugh when I hear people say that they hate us because we are free. They hate us because we are rich. They hate us because we are infidels and we do not follow Islamic law. It sounds good to the average American that gets his or her news from Fox News, but the reality is actually much darker. They hate us, because we are bombing their countries, killing their men, women and children, poisoning their lands and stealing their resources. It’s just that simple.

 These “terrorist” organizations have stated many times, they want all U.S. military presence out of the holy land. They do not want our western democracy and they certainly do not want or need us to tell them how to live. They don’t want a Starbucks or Rite Aid on every corner. They don’t want our western religion corrupting their children. They don’t want our western music and films corrupting their society.

 I can see that and I can understand that. While I agree with what they are saying, I don’t agree with the murder of innocent people-by either side.

 Whenever I am faced with a person who parrots words from the tele-prompted-AP-wire-fed-news that is spoken as if it were indeed the truth, I use this layman’s argument. When I am done I ask two simple questions, I always get the same responses.

 “My family has owned a piece of land for over a hundred years. I have a modest sized house on it, but mostly the land is open and wild. The boys and I love to walk the land and explore. My wife and I love to sit on the back porch and watch the sunsets in the summer.

 One day a wealthy man decides that it is not right that I should have all this land, yet it is going to waste so he decides to start building a house on it. I try talking to him, but he either ignores me or becomes increasingly violent and threatening towards me. He calls me names and says that I am just being greedy, selfish and close-minded.

 So I go to the police, who in turn refuse to stop him. After arguing with the police for several weeks they threaten me with arrest for harassment and falsifying police reports.

 Again I try to talk to the man and reason with him, but he doesn’t listen, nor does he care. The construction crew the man hired to build the house calls my wife names and is constantly saying vulgar and indecent things to her.

 Then I file suit in court. The man has the best lawyers and he plays golf with the judge so naturally, my case is tossed out after I am ridiculed by the judge for being calloused and selfish.

 After the house is built I get a letter from the county assessor stating that due to recent improvements the taxes on the land have gone up. Arguing with the department does no good, because just as the judge, the assessor and the man are good friends. The assessor states that he will take my land if I am even one day late on a payment.

 After months of battling with the county, state, police and courts, the days grow long and start to heat up. So the man decides he wants to have a pool put in.

 At this point I am almost ready to throw in the towel.

 The man decides that having the pool right next to his house is not an option, so he tears down the fence I just had built and puts the pool in my backyard.

 We argued, but of course, he won again.

 So I pleaded with the man to build a small fence around the pool, for the sake of my sons.

He declines and says it would detract from the aesthetics of the waterfall.

 I relent again and tell my wife that the boys can’t go outside unless she or I are with them.

 Over the next few weeks with put up with the man and his loud pool parties that last well into the night. Bleary eyed we roll out of bed only to have to clean up the mess his guest leave, and we pay to have the extra trash hauled away.

 Then one day, my son Ben, sneaks out of the house while I am at work. He knows to stay away form the pool, but he is running around and playing. He is not paying attention to what he is doing and he falls into the pool. My wife is in the house, she doesn’t hear his cries for help.

 My four year old son, Benjamin, drowned in a pool put on my land by a man that thought he could do whatever he wanted just because he felt like it.”

 A man stole my land. Destroyed my property, belittled and insulted my family; caused the death of my son, and all the while he was protected by his money and friends.

 What do you think I am going to do to that man and his family? What do you think I am going to do to all of his friends and their families?

What would you do?

In Liberty,

 Richard Camacho

Ron Paul 2012

Two To Change The World

My name is Richard Camacho, I live in California, and I am a Ron Paul fan.

 I first heard of Ron Paul in the summer of 2007. I was at my brother’s house, though now I can’t remember exactly why. I think the reason and subsequent activities were over shadowed by what I was about to see.

 After the usual banter and chit chat the conversation turned to politics, as it often does when the subjects of family, money and the like come up. I can’t remember what we were talking about, but I clearly remember my brother asking, “So, who are you going to vote for?”

 At the time I was 29 and I had only delved shallowly into the political world, and had not yet learned the importance of doing my due diligence in selecting a candidate. I was married recently and my beautiful wife had given birth to our first son only months before. In life, there truly are many distractions that may keep us from looking at things with a more critical eye, let alone a magnifying glass.

 I responded simply to my brother’s question, “I don’t know yet, but I am liking this Obama guy so far.”

 My brother, Jon, nearly fell out of his chair. His obvious shock at my statement struck me as odd, but even though he is my older brother, I wasn’t worried about an imminent heart attack.

 “What? Oh man, come on, are you serious? He is just like all the rest of those politicians.” Was the response he gave after he had re-seated himself and caught his breath.

 My response was something to the effect of, “I’m not voting for McCain so who does that leave?”

 “Ron Paul.” He replied.

 What I am about to say next, though it may seem funny or insensitive, I assure you it is what I said.

 “Ron Paul? Isn’t she some weird pop singer?” For the sake of some readers who may not know, Ru Paul, is the singer I was referring to.

 Ultimately, I was corrected in my similar name association error, and then I was educated. Jon opened his laptop and searched for Ron Paul on YouTube. That was the first of many videos I was to watch on him that day. I won’t go so far as to say that I was instantly converted, but the seed had been planted that day and grew into a strong and beautiful tree, with deep seated roots.

 I want to keep this as short as possible because I know, probably better than some, that the mind can only comprehend what the seat can endure.  In that interest I will do my best not to digress, regress or talk more than less, if possible.

 I think I want the same things as most Americans, and humans want.

I want the right of Self Determination.

I want to be free from tyranny, government intrusion and unnecessary wars.

I want my dollar to be worth the same dollar it was yesterday and the day before that.

I want it to be worth a dollar in the future.

I want to be the master of my domain.

I want to be free to use my personal property as I would like.

I want to know that the fruits of my labor will not be squandered if I should so choose to part with it.

I want to be able to protect not only myself, but my family.

I want to be able to protect those that cannot protect themselves.

I want to be able to do what I want and when I want as long as I do not cause harm to another's person or property.

 Now you might say, “Geez, you don’t ask for much do you?”

 No, really I don’t. I only ask for the things that our founders fought and died for. I only want these things that were etched in blood soaked stone over 230 years ago when this great idea became a nation. These things are Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness.

 Over the next few weeks I started looking into John McCain and Barack Obama. What I found was eye opening to say the least. In my mind, the “other candidates” never had a chance so I didn’t bother with them.

 Over the years we have become accustomed to the same arguments, debate topics and “issues” that seem to, not only plague our great nation, but the political cycle: Education, Poverty, War, Jobs, Taxes and the current Administrations Incompetence. These issues are cyclical and they always have and always will plague our system. The interesting things is, every candidate was either saying the same thing, not saying anything or saying something completely different than what they had previously said.

 The Republican Party platform of 08 was war, war and more war. The Democratic Party platform of the 2008 election was change, transparency and hope. Now, if we ask ourselves and answer truthfully, which platform sounds more appealing? Yes, the Democrats.

 The only problem with their man was, even though he was saying all this stuff about hope and change, he really wasn’t saying anything!

 Honestly, all McCain, Giuliani and just about the rest of the mainstream Republican Party was saying was, “We need to go to war. We need to go to war. We need to go to war. For a hundred years if that is what it takes.”

 A hundred years! Are you serious? With a baby at home and at least one more to come in the next few years, is there any way I would ever vote for a party that would ultimately want to send my children off to war?

There is no way in hell that I would ever do that. I don’t know of any parents that would.

 So now I have to choose between the guy that wants to send my kids off to war, or the guy that is talking about hope and change without talking about hope and change.

 Enter Ron Paul.

 Finally, here is a candidate that I agree with almost everything on. I admit, he does have a few quirky positions, but in reality, they all do and we as humans will naturally tend to disagree on one or seventy-five things. That’s just the way we are. We have learned to communicate so that we can communicate.

 To this day I have a hard time understanding why more Americans disregard his message and positions. I can barely fathom the logic behind some of the arguments I have heard against him. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yes I know, but if you are going to have an opinion, you can at least make sure it's your opinion.

 At that time Ron Paul was only getting about 1% of the media coverage and still to this day I can’t understand it. To me, here was a candidate talking in-depth about things that not only were important to me, but things that I agreed with. McCain wanted to kill my kids and Obama, well; I honestly didn’t know exactly what he was saying.

 I’m just a regular guy; I drive a forklift at work and I fish when I can. I love my boys and my wife more than anything in this world. I believe that my hard work will pay off sooner or later if I just keep at it. I get yelled at by my wife for not “helping enough” and when the boys are bad, she says they are, “your kids”.

 I try to teach them right and wrong, to respect their elders and to always do their best, no matter what. Everything I do is for them. When, Ben, My oldest was born, my life changed instantly. I now had this little person depending on me for everything. Here was this little man that looked at me with nothing but trust and love. It was no longer just about my wife or me. 

 My every action is weighed against my own integrity and the things that I feel are right. They may not always be popular, but that does not make them any less right. I get tired and my wife does too, but we can't give up and we cannot fail them. If we do, then who will teach our children? Who will make sure that we leave our little piece of the world better than we found it for them?

 I do not wish to leave a world wracked with war to my sons. I do not wish to leave a country that has given up its freedom for security to my sons. I do not wish to leave a country that has allowed its wealth to be squandered by a faith-based currency system. I do not wish to leave a future to my sons in which they have little hope or opportunity of ever regaining the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 I refuse to look my sons in the eye when I am old and apologize for abdicating my duty to ensure a better future for them. They deserve better than that, because they have made me better, they have made my world better. Is it not my responsibility to do the same for them? The responsibility that I welcomed almost five years ago, the integrity to which I now judge all my actions by, the principles that I have since come to know and understand, they all require that I vote for Ron Paul.

 Aside from all of the politics, scandals, corruption, debates, platforms and party lines, there are two reasons that I must vote for Ron Paul. Those two reasons have names, Benjamin and Liam.

In Liberty,

 Richard Camacho

Inherent and Inalienable

 I have read a few court transcripts and even watched a few live arguments on TV. The most infamous being of course, The O.J. Trial, but coming in at a close second, was the oral arguments of the Supreme Court of California concerning Proposition 8.

 The O.J. Trial was, at best, boring and terribly mundane, but the Prop 8 case, that was interesting. Not because I voted for the measure, but because for the first time I started hearing "big words" that I had only heard of in reference to the Constitution and its amendments. Words like "inherent" and "inalienable" were two mentioned most frequently. The argument I understand, was if the right to alter the states constitution through  a vote of the people by ballot measure was something that could be barred, and allowed only through the legislature or if, in fact, it was something that could not be taken away. See, I told you, interesting.

 It should be noted at this point, that I had just entered the realm of politics after being led there by my brother Jon. I had just barely begun to understand the importance of a single vote, ballot measures, taxes, budget cuts and talks as well as the political office candidates themselves. Prior to this I had not voted with any regularity that I can remember.

 I was leaning towards a vote for Obama, because like some I am sure, I liked his message of  "Hope and Change", his pledge for transparency and his stance on GITMO and the war. By that I mean he pledged to end both. I admit, rather embarrassingly now, that I had only watched a few broadcasts and listened to a few speeches of his, thus failing completely to do any digging. I had even changed my party from Republican to  Democrat so I could vote for him.

 My views were to about to drastically change on the political front, but I will cover that in another segment.

 Right around the time I had discovered Ron Paul, I started digging into things a bit more deeply, with more of a tendency towards, what-is-the-role-of-the-people/government, and less so with a sense of the typical conspiracy theory outlook.

 I have always felt that something was "off" in terms of our laws and society, but I could never put my finger on it. I could never stomach the thought of unquestionably submitting to authority, accepting the fact that I had to obey all laws, ordinances, regulations, codes and such or that this was just the way life is supposed to be.

 So naturally, as with most humans, when something didn't sound right, I went searching for the answers...or at least more information. What I have learned over these last three or so years has been-mind blowing-at times. I was finally starting to realize that yes, there was more to it than I have been led to believe and no, this was not the way life was supposed to be.

 I am a layman, with no formal education higher than 12th grade. I have never taken any college courses for journalism, writing, research, law or even English, and I am sure that it will show through. I drive a forklift, manage inventory and people in a bio-pharmaceutical manufacturing environment, so it really doesn't bother me. I just want you to know, that I completely okay if my readability score is an 8, or lower, on the Fleischer-Kincaid scale.  Let's get on with it.

 Your religious beliefs matter not in the context of the Constitutions protection of individual liberties. For the sake of writing ease in this OP we will use the mainstream ideology of Intelligent Design.

 When God created you, me and everyone else, he granted us the most precious gift-Life. In that, there are certain responsibilities and certain privileges that cannot be taken away by any government body, or any person representing a government body. While the reality is in fact true, it is in no way a justification or moral exemption to do so. Thieves, murderers, rapists and tyrants will seek to deprive you of these rights, however, the Founders, having experienced these atrocities first hand had identified these rights and saw fit to see them protected in our country's supreme law-The Constitution.

 The argument over what exactly the framers meant by this phrase or that phrase is completely irrelevant. The continual living interpretation of the law is a fallacy and should be regarded as such. The framers knew exactly what they meant, and they said it, in no plainer language that they knew. They saw fit to minimize the wording whenever possible so as to leave the slightest possible room for contortion and re-interpretation by men. Hence the statements, "We are a nation of laws, not of men" and "It is the letter of the law, not the spirit in which it was intended".

 "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

 Never a more powerful statement was made.

 These were all men of great and unquestionable moral character that knew, not only in their hearts, but also in their minds that men are not created to be ruled, but to be the ruler of their own character and that they alone should decide what direction they would seek to align their moral compass. They understood that it was not the place of governments or of other men to prescribe the manner in which lives should be directed or what freedoms men and women are entitled to.

 Providence, The Supreme Architect, was their guide and their light and they needed no man, king, nor any government body to assert that to them. Having all justification come through each breath and with every thought, they knew what the right to life truly was. They were staunch in their affirmation of these "certain inalienable rights" and they sought fit to preserve them for the sake of the experiment.

 Before I list them I want to go over the definitions of the two most important words concerning these rights. Inalienable and Inherent. These words, and their meanings are not synonymous, yet they are far from mutually exclusive. An understanding of these words is exceptionally important and crucial if, you are ever going to learn what your rights truly are. The meaning of these words will, I hope, help you to contemplate and understand the stark difference between a "right" and a "privilege".

Inalienable;
Impossible to take away:
"not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law"

Synonyms:

Unchallengeable

Absolute

Immutable

Not able to be forfeited

Unassailable

Incontrovertible

Indisputable

Undeniable

Inherent;
 Basic:
 "part of the very nature of something, and therefore permanently characteristic of it or necessarily involved in it"

Synonyms:

Intrinsic

Innate

Inbuilt

Natural

Inborn

 To say some thing is "inalienable" means that there can be no question to it or of it.
The color red is integral in the color purple, therefore it is an inalienable fact that you cannot make purple without red.

 To say some thing is "inherent" means that it is a part of something larger or more complex and cannot be separated without changing the larger or more complex thing.
The color red is inherent to the color purple, therefore it is an indisputable fact that you cannot make purple without red.

 I would say something that is inherent is, in fact, inalienable.

"...among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 Life:
 Meaning, you have the right to your life. You have the right to do as you please with it, as long as you cause no harm to anothers life or property. Let's just take a minute to think about what that really means. This is truly the most precious and powerful right.

 ...................................................................................................................................................................

 Does it mean that you have the right to sit on the couch and watch TV 27/7/365 from the day your are born til the day you die? Yes, yes it does, but I would strongly advise against that. It means that you have a definitive and indisputable right to your life; Including, but not limited to, any and all decisions, obligations, moral dilemma's actions, consequences, fruits, directions, destruction, repair, thoughts and protections necessary to effect such a lifestyle as you may see fit so long as you, in the course of your actions, do not whether overt or covertly, deprive another of their basic rights. This right is also inclusive of any persons you may be either morally or legally bound to care for.

1.  You have the right to speak you mind and express yourself through speech, art, craft, music, letter, or recreation. The very First Amendment.
2.  You have the right to protect that life, at all costs, if necessary, up to and including the use of deadly force. The Second Amendment.
3.  You have the right to be secure in your person against unreasonable searches, seizures, arrests or detainment. The Fourth Amendment.
4.  You have the right to not have your own words used against you in a court of law. The Fifth Amendment.
5.  You have the right to a fair and speedy trial and to confront those that would accuse or otherwise seek to tarnish your good name and moral character. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
6.  You have the right to be tried in a familiar place, being judged by those people who would presumably have encountered certain equivalent life experiences, without fear of excessive bail so as to effect the otherwise unattainable release, nor to fear of, or suffer any punishment considered cruel and unusual. The Seventh and Eighth Amendments.

 Liberty:
Freedom.
Pure.
Unabridged.
Freedom.

 The right to truly be free to do as you would choose and please so long as you do not deprive another of their rights. The right to make any and all decisions that you may see fit, at anytime and any place in the course of your life so long as you do not deprive another or their rights. The freedom to live your life and exercise your rights without fear of persecution or repercussion from any person or form of government so long as you do not deprive another of their rights. I think not only as Americans, but as humans, this is the most under stated, forgotten and abused right of them all. I can, and probably will write a whole other OP on this. Simply because it both saddens and sickens me to know that people think and/or are conditioned to believe that this is freedom.

 The Pursuit of Happiness:
Set parameters for conscious thought....

1. Do Not Murder.
2. Do Not Deprive Any Person of Their Rights or Property.

What does, can or will make you happy?
 You have been granted the very precious gift of life conjoined with all the freedom you could ever possibly need to attain those things or ideas that would make you happy. You are the master of your domain and you own the ground beneath your feet. Let nothing, save these few, stand before you and succeed in denying you these things or ideas. The dream that calls to you can be both real and yours, you have but only to open your heart, mind and eyes to embrace it.


 I can't think for you and I cannot tell you what every natural, inherent and inalienable right would be, because mine may be different from yours depending on the paths we choose. I can only do for you as Ron Paul has done for me-Plant The Seed of Liberty in Your Mind.


 In Liberty,
 Richard R. Camacho

Speaking of Occupy

 Unless you have been living under a rock or living in the back woods somewhere, you have undoubtedly heard of, and have seen all the news concerning the Occupy Wall Street movements. I can't begin to tell the details of what the Occupiers actually want, and I don't think very many people actually can. They seem to be loosely aligned by, and to, the growing and sometimes extreme disdain that Americans have for certain aspects of the financial industry these days. In some regards, they are fully justified. After all, was not the housing bubble, crash and subsequent economic decline due, in large part, to certain elements of this industry? The federal government included.

 To put it plainly, people are pissed off...and rightly so.

 Large coporations have folded, banks have become insolvent, banks have been bailed out, working class people have lost their jobs, houses, cars and for some, their sanity may have been lost somewhere along these lines as well. We watched as the crisis unfolded and we also watched as news came out about what the underlying cause had been. Another simple word-greed.

 Then we watched as the federal government, despite an overwhelming outcry of opposition borrowed money against the future of our children, and handed it out like a welfare check to some of these same corporations and banks that created this mess. The premise was, "Yes, even though these banks were greedy and careless. Even though we helped create this moral hazard, we have to bail them out. The future of America depends on it. The future of the world economy depends on it. So, sorry Mr. Taxpayer, you just don't understand what is happening here."

 No wonder people are pissed.

 Personally, I think the TARP was a bad idea and I can find nothing in the Constitution that authorizes it, but that's another Central Bank story.

 So yes, I can see whay people are pissed, I'm pissed too. I have already noticed the inflationary changes that stem from TARP, and not just from TARP. I lost money too, but I didn't get a check from the Fed. In fact, it was just the opposite, I got a bill for $9720.10!

 Part of what the movement is about, I think, is the fact that almost no one in our government seems to listen to their constituency anymore.  Banks were bailed out and the American people were left high and dry. We had Bush, with that smug, shit-eating-grin on his face telling us that we, the people, were not smart enough to understand what was happening and that we should leave the thinking to the smart people.

 Then we had Obama and his irritating Winnie The Pooh Gopher whistle telling us that yes, we just have to do it again. Are you serious? If the first bail-out didn't work, what makes you think the second one will?

 I digress.

 I didn't start this OP to go off on a rant about Bush, Obama or the Fed. I started it because I wanted to talk about the Ocuppy vs. the First Amendment. Including all the police interference, excessive force, brutality and utter trampling of the protected right to speak our minds. I will start with the text of the Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 Now let's pick apart this amendment and talk about what applies to these protests.
 "...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 Abridging the freedom of speech; Encarta's third definition is, "to deprive someone of their rights."
 Abridge the freedom of the press; Again Encartra's definition applies and I will explain this a bit later.
 Abridge the right of the people to peacefully assemble and address their issues to the government; Encartra again applies.

 The freedom of speech is, just that. The freedom to speak your mind, to have an opinion and to share that opinion with anyone and everyone that will listen. Now, I do agree that there are some limitations as to the time and place.

 For example: Let's say you can't stand Barbara Striesand, but you just happen to recieve an invitation to one of her charity fundraisers being held at a fancy hotel or convention center. You can, at any time, start to speak your mind and otherwise disrupt the party, but the hostess and/or her security team, friends, family or Mickey Mouse has the right to remove you from the building and throw you out into the street. I think that is a good example of a situation where removing you from the site or otherwise preventing you from speaking your piece would not be a violation of your protected right. Simply because, it is a private function, paid for with private money and located on private property. This almost applies in New York.

 Now, if you just so happen to be on public property, your right is protected by the first amendment and you can speak freely. Regardless of whether your material is offensive to anyone else. However, if you are on public property and causing damage to that property or otherwise preventing anyone that wants to use the property from using the property, the protection of your right ends there. Public land is, for the public, the people, of not just the city or town, but of every person in America and you do not have the right to destroy or cause harm to any persons property.

 Sadly enough, this reason has been abused as justification for the removal of the occupy camps and the otherwise abridgement of the protesters rights. Mayors and police chiefs decided that some of these camps were posing or creating a nuisance or public saftey hazard and ordered them to be disbanded, often times with the use of, or under the threat of force and/or imprisonment.


Next is the freedom of the press and before you say something like, "there were no reporters in the camps" let me argue this. In the age of the smart phone, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and the Blogosphere; You cannot convince me that there was not at least one person in these crowds that had, or maintains a blog and was, at that time, continuing to update the site as to the situation. Oh, I'm sure there were plenty.

 You might argue that blogging or social networking is not the press. Why is it not? Do we all have to have shiny hair, perfectly white teeth, a college degree in journalism and four pounds of make-up on our faces in order to be recognized as a legitimate news reporter? If you said yes, then you are not only missing the point of journalism, but a few other things as well. A journalist records data and events in a journal, of which he or she will then later report on or about. So a guy that has a blog and reports the news on it is then, for all intents and purposes, a journalist and a news reporter. Broken down even further, every human being is a news reporter...after all, why do you think we like to gossip so much?
People Reporting Everyday Social Situations.

 Last and certainly not least, is the right for the people to peacefully assemble and address their government concerning grievances. Broken down or simplified, it means you can, at any time and public place, assemble and discuss your issues.

 The interesting thing about the last part of this sentence is, there is no mention of a permit, acceptable hours, levels of noise, amount of people or any authority for any form of government to interfere as long as your assembly is peaceful. It is pretty cut and dried on this. Say what you want and as long as you are not causing harm to anothers person or property, you must be left alone.

Stage one:

 I have heard many things said about Congressman Paul, most of them are either false or inaccurate. Crazy, kook, devil, anarchist, fool, senile, greedy, stupid, etc etc are some that come to mind. The thing is, in actuality, he is none of those things.

 You would call a man crazy because he believes in the idea of liberty, that he is the only one who can decide what is best for his self and that no one has the right to force him to do something he does not want to do.

 You call the man a kook because he believes the gov't is an institution created by men for the sole purpose of protecting life, liberty and property. That gov't cannot grant rights to anyone or anything, because gov't has no authority to grant those rights-govt did not create those rights. Men and women are born with those rights.

You call the man a fool because he would say things like, "The gov't has no authority to create a public school system. The gov't has no business being involved in the education of Americans."

 You call the man a devil because he would say things like, "Let that uninsured person die." When what he really said was, insurance is a product, just like soda, cigarettes and TV. As such it is the property of the person that created it. You do not have a right to some ones property and the gov't cannot grant you that right. If you cannot afford TV, then you don't watch CSI. If you cannot afford health insurance and you get cancer, you have no right to force some one else to pay for your treatment. If you or the gov't does, it is theft and it is wrong. If you cannot afford the treatment, then unfortunately you may die.

 You call the man an anarchist because he advocates deregulating the economy and business. You say this would create chaos and "look how well deregulation worked for the housing market". In fact, deregulation helped the housing market, at first. Then as with all faith based currency systems there was a bust to the boom. The problem was exacerbated when the fed stepped in and bailed out the banks that were about to fail. In a free market systems with little to no regulation, banks, corps and people fail all the time-that is the way it is supposed to work. One mans loss is another mans gain.

 This is how we learn-through our successes, and our failures. But, we will never learn if mommy and daddy always step in to bail us out. That is called enabling the institution and it doesn't work. Just look at California's correctional system.


  You would call a man senile because he believes that we can live within our means and we do not need three gov't agencies that have overlapping responsibilities. Do we need the Dept of Interior when we have F&W, NOAA, COMMERCE, BLM, COE, BOR and a few more that all oversee the same things?

 You call a man stupid because he believes that our soldiers should be home protecting their lands and families. Protecting Americans on American soil. That we should not occupy foreign nations. That we should not police the world and build nations. That we should not be a part of the UN or ally with any nation. That we should not kill Americans without due process and that every human life is precious and it should not be wasted. That the more enemies we make, the less safe we actually are.

 You call the man greedy because he believes that money made is the property of the person that made it. That the gov't has no right telling us how much of our money we may keep for ourselves...after we have paid them. That if we do decide to give some of our money to the gov't it should be frugal with it. That if we have to balance our budget daily, weekly, monthly or yearly, the gov't should also have to. That just because a person is rich, does not mean they should pay higher taxes. That the gov't cannot tax a nation into prosperity.

 You laugh at him because he believes that a private organization should not create money, thereby inflating the monetary base and deflating our purchasing power. Because he believes the power to coin money was granted to congress alone.

 You mock him because he says the constitution is the supreme law of the land. That we are a nation of laws, not of men. That it is the letter of the law, not the spirit in which it was intended.

 You marginalize him because he says that our founding fathers sacrificed their lives for a chance that we might be a free nation. That Jefferson, Washington and Franklin faced the same challenges we face today and have faced over the years. That the constitution can be applied to all things yesterday, today and tomorrow.

 You call him a radical because he wants limited gov't intrusion, sound money and a peaceful foreign policy. I say, why would you not?

 We have been doing the same thing since 1913 and look where it has taken us. I think it is past the time to restore our constitution of principles and liberty as the supreme law of the land. Let all things be governed and measured by it. Let all men be free in their own minds, bodies and property. The free market does a better job of regulating itself, then any gov't ever could. Life is not supposed to be easy and anyone that tells you it is, is lying to you.

 You are not granted any right except the right to live, love, earn and learn with whatever, whenever, whomever and however you choose so long as you do not cause harm to another's person or property.

Ron Paul 2012