One thing Ayn Rand said regarding the Constitution

[galtgulch]

"Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals - that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government - that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens' protection against the government."

--Ayn Rand

Even if Ron Paul supporters are unable to pull off the seemingly impossible task of nominating him, he has brought to the attention of the populace the crucial role of the Constitution. He has pointed out that the reason for the current state of our economy and our involvement in foreign affairs which is responsible for our growing national debt and the danger of the collapse of our currency is failure to adhere to the limits spelled out in the Constitution.

The compass to use to save our republic is in our hands as is the map and the route to follow. Success depends on the role each of us chooses to play in this drama. Ron Paul has reminded us of the wisdom of the Founders and shown us the way. He may not get to the promised land but if we do ever get there we will have Ayn Rand and Ron Paul to thank among others.

galt

[syrakusos]

He has pointed out that the reason for the current state of our economy and our involvement in foreign affairs which is responsible for our growing national debt and the danger of the collapse of our currency is failure to adhere to the limits spelled out in the Constitution.

The error of structual functionalism asserts that no matter who is in a society, it can be made or remade to any desired outcome according to a plan that creates institutions and defines their operation.

The error of structural functionalism fails to explain why so few of the perhaps 300 constitutions in the world actually create the societies they putatively intend.

Institutions precede constitutions.

... by the way, most of the people who are less than three days dead have noticed that the American dollar is not in danger of collapse, but actually collapsed about 75 years ago and then did a dead cat bounce before settling in to permanent decay about 1972... I was born in 1949. Today's dollar buys what a nickel did in 1958: a Snickers bar. Gasoline that was 20 cents a gallon is now 4 dollars per. I went to buy a suit a couple of weeks ago. Guess how much it cost? (Hint: What is the price of gold?)

Edited April 30, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta

[Selene]

He has pointed out that the reason for the current state of our economy and our involvement in foreign affairs which is responsible for our growing national debt and the danger of the collapse of our currency is failure to adhere to the limits spelled out in the Constitution.

The error of structual functionalism asserts that no matter who is in a society, it can be made or remade to any desired outcome according to a plan that creates institutions and defines their operation.

The error of structural functionalism fails to explain why so few of the perhaps 300 constitutions in the world actually create the societies they putatively intend.

Institutions precede constitutions.

... by the way, most of the people who are less than three days dead have noticed that the American dollar is not in danger of collapse, but actually collapsed about 75 years ago and then did a dead cat bounce before settling in to permanent decay about 1972... I was born in 1949. Today's dollar buys what a nickel did in 1958: a Snickers bar. Gasoline that was 20 cents a gallon is now 4 dollars per. I went to buy a suit a couple of weeks ago. Guess how much it cost? (Hint: What is the price of gold?)

First choice I would make is find another place to buy your suits or have your suit made and tailored from scratch.

Adam

[syrakusos]

First choice I would make is find another place to buy your suits or have your suit made and tailored from scratch.

Once you see a roomful of sales trainees in cheap suits, you never want to look like that.

Michael

[syrakusos]

He has pointed out that the reason for the current state of our economy and our involvement in foreign affairs which is responsible for our growing national debt and the danger of the collapse of our currency is failure to adhere to the limits spelled out in the Constitution.

Apparently, you do not know the actual U.S. Constitution, and apparently, neither does Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul.

"The Senate and the House of Representatives achieved the 2/3 majority required to pass this joint resolution over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973." -- Wikipedia: War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Resolution was necessary -- in the considered opinions of two-thirds of the Representatives and Senators, over a Presidential Veto -- because events move faster today than they did in 1789. The first transatlantic satellite television broadcast took place July 23, 1962. Cyrus Field laid the first successful transatlantic telegraph in 1857. (On August 16, Pres. Buchanan received a telegram from Queen Victoria. The reliable transatlantic telegraph dates to July 28, 1866.) So, the hundred years between instanteous transcontinental communication and the War Powers Resolution shows that this Congressional action was no mere fad.

Seen from some perspectives. the Constitution of 1789 had "internal contradictions" that idealists of our day would remove. The Post Office is one example. Slavery is another. Of course, the power to tax is the power to destroy, so, all taxes, levies, duties and fees would have to come out. In fact, you can enjoy an alternate universe in which this view played out: The Probablity Broach by L. Neil Smith. (Several other novels follow in the same universe.) But that is what that is: science fiction.

Here in the real world, the Constitution is what it is, independent of your hopes, fears, wishes or dreams. At least, that would be an objective perception by anyone commited to reality.

Addendum: "The power to tax is the power to destroy."

This quotation comes from the words of DANIEL WEBSTER and those of JOHN MARSHALL in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland. Webster, in arguing the case, said: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” 17 U.S. 327 (1819). In his decision, Chief Justice Marshall said: “That the power of taxing it [the bank] by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it, is too obvious to be denied” (p. 427), and “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy … [is] not to be denied” (p. 431). -- Bartleby.com

U.S. Supreme Court M'CULLOCH v. STATE, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) 17 U.S. 316 (Wheat.)

M'CULLOCH v. STATE OF MARYLAND et al. February Term, 1819

"If the states may tax the bank, to what extent shall they tax it, and where shall they stop? An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...7&invol=316

Edited April 30, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta

[Aggrad02]

First choice I would make is find another place to buy your suits or have your suit made and tailored from scratch.

Once you see a roomful of sales trainees in cheap suits, you never want to look like that.

Michael

LOL... Very True

[Aggrad02]

He has pointed out that the reason for the current state of our economy and our involvement in foreign affairs which is responsible for our growing national debt and the danger of the collapse of our currency is failure to adhere to the limits spelled out in the Constitution.

Apparently, you do not know the actual U.S. Constitution, and apparently, neither does Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul.

Come On, claims with no explanation are worthless.

Please show how the either the Constitution has been followed in the manner in which was intended by our founders(which you already said it wasn't) or how our economy and national state of affairs has nothing to do with the socialist unconstitutional federal policies berthed by Wilson and FDR and continued by just about every President since.

Or give some other explanation of your position which I might of misunderstood.

--Dustan

[Aggrad02]

He has pointed out that the reason for the current state of our economy and our involvement in foreign affairs which is responsible for our growing national debt and the danger of the collapse of our currency is failure to adhere to the limits spelled out in the Constitution.

The error of structual functionalism asserts that no matter who is in a society, it can be made or remade to any desired outcome according to a plan that creates institutions and defines their operation.

The error of structural functionalism fails to explain why so few of the perhaps 300 constitutions in the world actually create the societies they putatively intend.

Institutions precede constitutions.

... by the way, most of the people who are less than three days dead have noticed that the American dollar is not in danger of collapse, but actually collapsed about 75 years ago and then did a dead cat bounce before settling in to permanent decay about 1972... I was born in 1949. Today's dollar buys what a nickel did in 1958: a Snickers bar. Gasoline that was 20 cents a gallon is now 4 dollars per. I went to buy a suit a couple of weeks ago. Guess how much it cost? (Hint: What is the price of gold?)

The problem with this is our Constitution was not created to make our society which probably 299 of 300 of the constitution of the world look to do. Our Constitution was a limit on the power of government and nothing more.

Here in the real world, the Constitution is what it is, independent of your hopes, fears, wishes or dreams. At least, that would be an objective perception by anyone commited to reality.

You somewhat contradict yourself here. Our Constitution is what it is, and to find out what that is all you have to do is read the Founder's documents including the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers(this is objective). But in the top quote you imply that no matter what our constitution says objectively, how our society is formed will determine our government independent of any institutions such as the Constitution, implying that if one can affect a change in the thinking of society then one could change the interpretation of the Constitution, but you told Galt that no matter what his hopes , fears, wished or dreams are that what happens is independent. Well it seems that either the Constitution is what it is via our founders, which matches up exactly to Galt's wishes and dreams, or how our society is formed will determine our government and as long as Galt fights for what he wishes and dreams, he can change society (Which is what he is doing by pointing out and educating people on what the Constitution is objectively). Either way Galt can win.

--Dustan

[Aggrad02]

The War Powers Resolution was necessary

Nothing done by Government is NECESSARY, maybe EXPEDIENT, but not NECESSARY.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Aggrad02

[Brant Gaede]

The War Powers Resolution was necessary 316

Nothing down (sic) by Government is NECESSARY, maybe EXPEDIENT, but not NECESSARY.

He didn't say it was.

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

Another quote by Ayn on the US Constitution:

"Ours was the first government based on and strictly limited by a written document- the Constitution- which specifically forbids it to violate individual rights or to act on whim. The history of the atrocities perpetuated by all the other kinds of government- unrestricted governments acting on umprovable assumptions- demonstrates the value and validity of the original political theory on which this country was built"

[Aggrad02]

The War Powers Resolution was necessary 316

Nothing down (sic) by Government is NECESSARY, maybe EXPEDIENT, but not NECESSARY.

He didn't say it was.

--Brant

Either he endorsed the views that he posted or his post didn't say anything at all and was pointless.

[Brant Gaede]

The War Powers Resolution was necessary 316

Nothing down (sic) by Government is NECESSARY, maybe EXPEDIENT, but not NECESSARY.

He didn't say it was.

--Brant

Either he endorsed the views that he posted or his post didn't say anything at all and was pointless.

Well, Michael, do you endorse this?

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Our Constitution was a limit on the power of government and nothing more.

Er, no. It was a charter that explicitly granted and ceded powers to the Federal government. You could argue that the Bill of Rights was hurriedly adopted to limit the exercise of Federal power, but subsequent Supreme Court interpretation made it debatable and uncertain whether any of the first 10 Amendments afford substantive personal rights. The weight of legal opinion and political tradition in the United States clearly concedes to Congress (the will of the majority of the electorate) sovereignty in terms of taxation, internal police power, regulation of commerce, public works, immigration, education, etc. The Executive was supposed to be 'vigorous' and constitutionally co-equal, according to the Founders.

Nothing in the Constitution of 1787 or today's political understanding suggests that the constitution is a limit on the power of government. I'm not sure that Americans ever understood Thomas Paine, who rightly said a government cannot lawfully author or amend its constitution. That's the basic problem with democracy. Flatter people with political representation, a piece of the pie so to speak, and they soon forget that government is inherently evil.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Aggrad02]

Our Constitution was a limit on the power of government and nothing more.

Er, no. It was a charter that explicitly granted and ceded powers to the Federal government. You could argue that the Bill of Rights was hurriedly adopted to limit the exercise of Federal power, but subsequent Supreme Court interpretation made it debatable and uncertain whether any of the first 10 Amendments afford substantive personal rights. The weight of legal opinion and political tradition in the United States clearly concedes to Congress (the will of the majority of the electorate) sovereignty in terms of taxation, internal police power, regulation of commerce, public works, immigration, education, etc. The Executive was supposed to be 'vigorous' and constitutionally co-equal, according to the Founders.

Nothing in the Constitution of 1787 or today's political understanding suggests that the constitution is a limit on the power of government. I'm not sure that Americans ever understood Thomas Paine, who rightly said a government cannot lawfully author or amend its constitution. That's the basic problem with democracy. Flatter people with political representation, a piece of the pie so to speak, and they soon forget that government is inherently evil.

Article 1 Section 9 is full of limits:

writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended

no bill of attainder or ex post facto law

no capitation or other direct tax (repealed by 16th)

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles from state to state

No preference shall be given to any port

No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations

No titles of Nobility

Section 10:

No state shall enter into a treaty...

No state shall lay any impost on imports or exports

No state shall keep troops....

Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights (Bill of Rights) shall not be construded to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.

Note: The Constitution would not have been ratified with out the promise of the Bill of Rights. So you cannot talk about the Constitution of September 13, 1788 without also including the Bill of Rights. They were not completely hammered out by the Constitutional Convention but they were on the table as part of the deal in a raw form. As seen especially by the 9th and 10th amendments, the Constitution is clearly a limitation of the power of government, now that is not followed today, but that is what it was meant to be.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Article 1 Section 9 is full of limits:

writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended

no bill of attainder or ex post facto law

no capitation or other direct tax (repealed by 16th)

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles from state to state

No preference shall be given to any port

No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations

No titles of Nobility

I know it seems straightforward, unambiguous, but habeas corpus was suspended during the Civil War, WWII, and today's Global War on Everybody. Congress and administrative agencies frequently make ex post facto law. Forfeiture of cars and cash for drug and weapon violations and Ruby Ridge style 'preemptive' murders are attainder in theory and practice. The deal on taxation between states was in fact the impetus to convene in Annapolis in 1786 and Philadelphia in 1787. Nobody expected a new constitution, all they wanted was a compact among the states to stop taxing each other's commerce. New Jersey was compared to a cask tapped at both ends, taxed by Pennsylvania and New York. The 'no money drawn' provision is a nonsense, since the Federal government was created to borrow money and retire Continental debt. No hereditary nobility? Er, Bushes Kennedys Roosevelts Tafts Adamses probably Clintons next.

Section 10:

No state shall enter into a treaty...

No state shall lay any impost on imports or exports

No state shall keep troops....

Limits on States, sure. No limit on Federal power.

Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights (Bill of Rights) shall not be construded to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.

Repeatedly voided by legislation, Executive Orders, and Supreme Court decisions.

The Constitution would not have been ratified with out the promise of the Bill of Rights. So you cannot talk about the Constitution of September 13, 1788 without also including the Bill of Rights. They were not completely hammered out by the Constitutional Convention but they were on the table as part of the deal in a raw form.

I'm sympathetic to your political view, but it's not accurate historically. Six states had already ratified before Virginia exacted a promise from James Madison that a coequivalent Bill of Rights would be added by Congress, which BTW was an enormously bad idea which Madison specifically and repeatedly argued against. It upended the notion of limited, enumerated powers. As I explained in previous writing:

...the Bill of Rights was constitutionally fatal to liberty in the United States. The framers knew that a laundry list of "rights" was a bad idea, because it reversed the notion of enumerated powers, and indeed history proved them correct. When you concretely define justice as a list of do's and don'ts, you implicitly deny the existence and validity of first principles.

With enormous confidence, contemporary writers have declared that the state is a permanent institution, the most efficient means of producing "social goods" (public justice, air traffic control, world peace, etc). Any fair reading of U.S. constitutional history makes plain how this paradigm hardened. Enumerated powers gave way to Hamilton's doctrine of "implied powers," especially during the Civil War epoch. Fifty years later, the New Deal ring-fenced a half dozen "preferred freedoms" (free speech, equal protection of law), granting regulatory power over the entire economy to new Federal bureaucracies. Freedom got smaller and smaller, and the police power grew larger and larger, paradoxically because a nervous Virginia Assembly demanded a Bill of Rights in 1789. Principles of Internet Law

The U.S. Constitution is pretty much a dead letter. Roe v Wade killed off strict construction.

W.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Aggrad02]

Wolf I agree with you on how the government has ignored the Constitution. And there were major problems with the SCOTUS way before Roe v. Wade.

--D

Edited May 5, 2008 by Aggrad02

[syrakusos]

Wolf, thanks for the inisghtful facts.

The Constittution was, at best, a statement of intent. How it has been understood and applied has changed. The Articles of Confederation gave the Congress the exclusive right to operate a post office.[1] The new Constitution said only that Congress shall operate post roads and post offices. Of course, the postal monopoly has been a tradition... and has been challenged. Similarly, Congress has the right to coin money and to borrow on the credit of the United States. Whether or not Congress has a monopoly on money is another question entirely. They do not. No one says that they dp. However, as in the recent case of Norfed -- and other seizures of gold, even outside the putative bounds of Executive Order 6102 [2] -- the police can do whatever they want.

You can claim that this is "unconstitutional." What difference does it make what you claim? If the Constitution were sufficient to limit the government, we would not have these problems.

As for the War Powers Act, I point out that the Consttution says that Congress shall have the power to declare war. That remains. However, Congress gave to the President the power to go to war in the absence of a declaration. America had done this several times before 1972, intervening in the internal affairs -- invading -- Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Dominiican Republic, for instance. A US "expeditiionary force" traipsd through Russia, intervening in their civil war on the side the czarists. The fact is that the War Powers Act only gave authority to actions that presidents had taken for 50 years. So, the current war in Iraq is completely within the charter of the Constitution.

So is the income tax.

And the right to vote for women and for 18-year olds.

If you want to talk about the "intent" of the Founders, that is fine, but keep them in their own time and place. As for the intent of the Founders, it was not unanimous or even aggregated. In fact, those touted "Anti-Federalist Papers" exist in at least two different canonical collections. Of course, it is not fair to say that the Fedealists expressed this or that intent by quoting the Anti-Federalists, but I grant that both groups influenced American political thought and both influenced the present Consttution.

By the way, the Articles date from 1781. But, the Declaration, of course is from July 4, 1776, by which date the United Colonies in Congress Assembled were printing their own money and had established the Marines. Congressional grants of office also date from before July 4, 1776. So apparently, our nation was founded and was operating before any "constitution" was necessary.

[Notes: ]

1. From the Articles of Confederation:

"The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States -- fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States -- regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated -- establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office..."

2.See also, "Gold Was Never Illegal" by Michael E. Marotta

http://coin-newbies.com/articles/gold_never_illegal.html

Edited May 6, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta

[syrakusos]

Please show how the either the Constitution has been followed in the manner in which was intended by our founders(which you already said it wasn't) or how our economy and national state of affairs has nothing to do with the socialist unconstitutional federal policies berthed by Wilson and FDR and continued by just about every President since.

Pard, most of these here owl hoots and sidewinders don't amount to a hill of beans, but your're a straight shooter, so I'll do my best for you.

If'n you visit the Avalon Project at Yale Law School, you can read the documents that led to the Declaration, the Articles and the Constitution. You know of the Federalist Papers and probably the Anti-Federalist Papers. All of them are fine. What they show is that "our founders" are not a roll call, like the Texas Rangers. All kinds of people added their two cents or two bits. They had "committees of correspondence" probably not a bad egg for today's "virtual communities" like this here one. So, what "our founders" intended is up for grabs. Who? When? What context? Hamilton's #29 or Jay's #3? Or Franklin via Poor Richard? As we all know, Hamilton had one vision, Madison another, and the were in the same party.

But OK, let's go with the big picture.

I say that our problems were not imposed on us from the top down, but grew from the roots to the fruits. If Wilson's fascism and Roosevelt's fascism (and I use that word correctly in its appropriate context: see here) were not reflective of some large number of people, they would have been stopped before they started. Obviously, Wilson, Hoover and Roosevelt II only reflected what some important number of ordinary folks actually wanted. America had changed.

If there were significant resistance -- and there was -- it would have found expression in newly elected representatives (which it did not) as well as court cases (which it did). The court cases (See here and scroll down to National Industrial Recovery Act.) are probably our best path back to what the "founders" may have "intended." However, the Supreme Court does reverse itself, so that must be taken into account.

As Wolf pointed out Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. At that same time, Salmon P. Chase created the federal debt notes so hated by some here. His rules were that all banks were subject to a direct tax. (Here for a paper from Texas A & M professor Gary Giroux.) The tax of 2 cents per bank draft ("check") forced many banks to close. Those that stayed open or were newly opened were the ones that deposited gold in the U.S. Treasury in return for Treasury Bonds and the right to issue their own National Bank Notes. Again, the point is that these things were done before Wilson and Roosevelt.

Eric Hoffer points out in The True Believer that every mass movement offers the same mythology. Once upon a time, we had a perfect world, or nearly so, but an evil agent stole it from us. However, if we all pull together now, we can recapture that better time, not for ourselves, but for our posterity. America did not just go down the tubes because of Wilson or Roosevelt II. That is mythology.

[syrakusos]

You somewhat contradict yourself here. Our Constitution is what it is, ... But ... you imply that no matter what our constitution says objectively ... but you told Galt ... Well, it seems that either ... or ...

The Constitution is what it is. It is not what it was. Amendment via the Constititution is constitutional. Therefore, the income tax, woman suffrage, direct election of senators, and inauguration in January are all part of that document. Rightwing superpatriots who claim otherwise are arguing for a different constitution than the one we have.

I might agree with many of those preferences. Ayn Rand herself said that the ideal society funds its government without taxation. But that is not what the Constitution is.

Laws enacted by Congress and either signed by the President or passed over his veto are constitutional until overturned by a court, ultimately by the Supreme Court. However, I point out that this, too, is not in the Constitution. Nothing in that original document gave Mr. Marshall the power to declare a law unconstitutional. That he found success was an innovation we all seem to have accepted.

I grant that the Constitution does limit the government via enumerated powers, checks and balances and division of powers. This was an important goal back in 1789. It remains important, certainly, for us here. You will not get any argument from me on that. Less government is better government. However, it is also true that the purpose of the Constitution is to empower government. The argument is that under the old Articles, Congress lacked enough authority to form a nation over the contrifugal forces of the times.

Others argue that the Constitution was nothing but a Federalist coup d'etat and the Articles were working just fine. The United States of America was being born. It was difficult time. But commerce was recovering. All of the alleged problems would have been solved and we would have a nation today, absent the Constitution. Or so the radical libertarians claim.

As has been noted, the present Constitution actually limits Congress in ways that the old Articles did not. Under the Articles, Congress had a legal monopoly on the "posts" (small packet transportation of literature). Under the Articles, Congress has a legal monopoly on money. Under the Articles, you could be arrested for inventing your own weights and measures. The present Constitution still allows Congress to do these things, but without the exclusive right to do them. So, the present Constitution does again limit the federal government.

My point is that Galtgulch falls into the same abysss as many superpatriots who claim that some non-existent "original" Constitution was purer and higher and truer than the current edition. He (and they -- and presumably Ron Paul) would do away with the income tax and the federal reserve bank and lord knows what else.

And that is my concern: lord knows what else... When you pick and choose your historical standards, all cards are wild. Votes for women? For 18-year olds? Slavery??? Inauguration in March?

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Yet, paying taxes is how you buy in to the society you claim to want to control with your vote. In the old days, you had to own land. Then, merchants won the right to have their very movable property tallied and taxed so that they could vote. Income tax is the industrial age expansion of the franchise based on your ability to create wealth via your intelligent labor. If you earn so little that you pay no income tax, then you should not be allowed to vote. At least, that is part of my own theory of government. So, I accept the income tax... though, of course, as an Objectivist, I advocate for a better world with no taxes at all.

In any case, the income tax, direct election of senators, presidential war powers, and the department of labor, the department of health and human services, and all the rest are, indeed, constitutional.

If Ron Paul or any other superpatriot want to change all of that, they need to say exactly what and how.

[galtgulch]

If Ron Paul or any other superpatriot want to change all of that, they need to say exactly what and how.

I appreciate all your contributions above to my initial post here of Ayn Rand's tribute to the Constitution.

If you want to know just what Ron Paul would do please proceed to his website www.ronpaul2008.com and read his issues.

I have heard him say that he would start to reduce the Federal Budget by bringing home troops presently stationed around the world in 130 countries, including Germany, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Italy and England, not to mention Iraq.

By doing so there would be savings in the hundreds of billions enabling him to eliminate the Federal Income Tax, which would be a kind of stimulus package of sorts don't you think? The IRS would be likewise abolished.

He has suggested that it would be more difficult to reduce domestic spending but that would follow in time.

As much as I worry about the consequences of abolishing the FBI and the CIA I am more fearful of the present direction the country is heading in with the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the various intrusions on citizens privacy.

It may be fashionable to criticize Ron Paul here but would you rather live under Barack Obama, who has infamously been quoted as saying, "You are your brother's keeper, but you haven't given enough yet!" Or McCain who is trying to counteract his reputation, for ignoring the Constitution in his reaching across the aisle to have his name added to Feingold, Lieberman and Kennedy on bills which violate the First and Second Amendments, by stating this week that he would name men to the Supreme Court who are strict Constitutionalists.

I attended the annual convention of the Massachusetts Medical Society today where I distributed Ron Paul literature to colleagues. Many were pleased to know Ron Paul is still standing and has a plan to try to be chosen as the Republican nominee in September. Many were inexplicably supporters of McCain or Obama. A few just thought that Ron Paul is simply an unrealistic choice having succumbed to the main stream media position that McCain has enough delegates.

As I have mentioned here, Ron Paul suggested to his supporters that they try to send as many delegates to the convention as possible. Efforts are underway and many McCain, Romney and Huckabee delegates are actually Ron Paul people, who will vote as required on the first ballot. Still McCain is not thought to actually have enough so called bound delegates and may not win on the first ballot.

It is not guaranteed and is not a sure thing. This venture may not succeed but enough of those who raised $4.2M for Ron Paul on Guy Falkes Day on November 5th or $6.1M on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, outside of Ron Paul's campaign, and thousands of others across the country who have joined since, are organizing, going to the caucuses, and electing delegates to the convention, despite efforts on the part of the GOP to stop them.

There are even Ron Paul supporters around the world who are supporting this effort. Here is one of the most recent such signs of support from overseas from ron paul supporters in Europe:

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48315

My contention is that it is worth trying because so much is at stake, meaning the future of our country and the freedom of its citizens, including you folks. At such times I think of the comment be Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged in which he says that his only regret is that in the process of fighting to save his own neck he is obliged to save the necks of those fellow businessmen who will not support the struggle. I have said this before and know that there are a handful here who are Ron Paul supporters and naturally I appreciate their efforts and consider them to be among the goodguys. It is similar to the struggle in Atlas Shrugged itself as Dagny kept supporting the tyranny by not going on strike.

Well what can any of you do at this point to help the cause? Explore www.ronpaul2008.com. Buy Ron Paul's new book: The Revolution: A Manifesto, which shouldn't be hard to find as it is on Amazon for about $11 and is now number 1 on the New York Times best seller list!

There might be a precinct leader in your precinct who would appreciate hearing from you. After all, if Ron Paul does get the nomination in September he will and we will have only a couple of months to campaign in order to get the message out so he will win in November. Anything you can use your ingenuity to do will help achieve that glorious goal!

Ron Paul received "over 71,000 votes in Indiana and North Carolina thus he earned the backing of over one million supporters across America."

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48391

http://tinyurl.com/59mej3

Join the fun. I have been nominated by my Republican State Committee person to be an At-Large Delegate and will have the opportunity to speak to the meeting of the State Committee where ten such at large delegates will be elected. Perhaps an exercize in futility but at least my voice will be heard in support of Ron Paul's advocacy of a return to traditional Republican roots of limited government and individual freedom and adherence to the Constitution.

Wm