Changes in Liberty

This week the topics have centered around the Memorial Day holiday which we celebrated last Monday. Memorial Day honors all those who have served in the military and have paid with their very lives to preserve the freedom and liberties that our country was founded on.

Much of the week, I shared with you the transcript of a speech given by Dr. Ron Paul, the Republican Congressman from Texas, who is also a 2008 Presidential Candidate. Ron Paul, in his speech titled "What Patriotism Really Means", mentioned a lot of topics previously presented in this blog, from the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attacks of 9/11, our civil liberties being eroded in the name of protection, and other forms of governmental abuse.

However, this is not the usual political rhetoric that you would expect from a candidate running for office. Anyone listening or reading one of Ron Paul's speeches can easily tell that this is not the typical candidate. One can easily speak out against the war where thousands of sons, daughters, and fathers are dying, but what candidate speaks out for lesser government, abolishment of the Federal Reserve System, and a tax system that makes sense?

What candidate speaks out against the "Patriot Act" which is hardly patriotic? This act erodes our freedom to do business and other civil liberties in the name of protection from a faceless enemy. What candidate speaks out against the Military Commissions Act? This act is especially heinous and detrimental to our rights, not just the rights of suspected "terrorists". Terrorists at this time means anyone who speaks out or protests against the government. Think about that one for a minute. So much for the land of the free!

This act, to quote Ron Paul: "grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony."

This is the best summarization I've seen concerning this detestable legislation. It seems as though it is something out of the SS manual used by the Nazis during World War II. All this in the name of protecting us. Right! Who believes this crap? The problem is most people are not aware of these rights and civil liberties being stripped from us. Wake up America!

Are you just a piece of livestock being herded down the pasture to the slaughtering house? Do we have individuals that are mortified by the acts of our government and are willing to speak out against these acts of tyranny. Who is the Bush Administration really serving with these unconstitutional Executive Orders? What do Congress get for voting for these heinous violations of our rights? If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know the answers to these questions.

What are you going to do - go along with the crowd (livestock)? What has all of those brave soldiers given their lives for - money? oil? power? What about our freedom? What about our rights? If you want to exercise your rights, vote for Ron Paul who really will change things not just issue bogus campaign promises that they never intend to keep.

As with all Saturdays, I will recap some key financial indicators that really provide some insight into what the markets are doing. The last several weeks, the spot price of precious metals have been rising with the US dollar index going down, depreciating an already weak dollar. This week these trends recovered slightly on slower activity because of the short trading week. The price of gold closed down from the week before closing on Friday at $886.90. Silver also fell to $16.89 per ounce. The price of oil also fell this last week closing at $127.68 per barrel. Because of these factors, the US dollar index rose and gained strength against the other major world currencies closing at 72.88. This week will likely be just a little dip before the trends continue.

So, what does liberty really mean to you? Reflect on that one for a while.

Among my people are wicked men
who lie in wait like men who snare birds
and like those who set traps to catch men.

Like cages full of birds,
their houses are full of deceit;
they have become rich and powerful

and have grown fat and sleek.
Their evil deeds have no limit;
they do not plead the case of the fatherless to win it,
they do not defend the rights of the poor.

Should I not punish them for this?"
declares the LORD.
"Should I not avenge myself
on such a nation as this? Jeremiah 5:26-29 (NIV)

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at the address below.
Email: DeltaInspire@panama-vo.com

What Patriotism Really Means Part IV

This week the topics have centered around Memorial Day and honoring those who paid the ultimate sacrifice of their live in the service of our country. Today, we will conclude with the last part of a speech from Dr. Ron Paul, 2008 Presidential candidate, given last May 22, 2007 in front of Congress.

Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.

Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in, though obviously extralegal.

A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government’s list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one’s name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver’s license. If REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver’s license ID for all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers.

Some of the least noticed and least discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic.

Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called “other conditions.” The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors’ approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States.

The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King’s abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.

Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliche “Support the Troops” is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.

Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm’s way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of “patriot”?

Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.

But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

Dr. Ron Paul, 2008 Presidential Candidate, Congressional speech given on May 22, 2007

If you're interested, here is a link to the video of this speech (24 minutes in length) -

• Google Video: -5792391565012624048

As I have stated many times in this blog, as always the choice is yours. If you are content and complacent with us losing our rights and having a military dictator institute martial law at the first sign of civil unrest or national disaster, then do nothing. Being a patriot means standing up to abuses in power, whether the abuses come from inside the country or outside. Do we want our sons and daughters in harm's way around the world? For what cause - oil? money? It certainly is not for our protection!

What will you do?

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Galatians 5:1 (NIV)

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at the address below.
Email: DeltaInspire@panama-vo.com

What Patriotism Really Means Part III

This week the topics have centered around the Memorial Day holiday and honoring those who gave their lives for our country. Although everyone loves patriotism and showing gratitude for those paid the ultimate price, we would all have a different feeling if we knew the real reasons why those men and women sacrificed themselves. Even today, as we continue to have our servicemen and women in mortal danger over in Iraq and Afghanistan, the tragedy continues. Dr. Ron Paul, 2008 Presidential candidate brings this up in his speech given last May 22, 2007 in front of Congress. Here is part three of that speech.

The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time.

The war mentality and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs.

Our enemies say, boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.

We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.

These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security.

We may be the economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost.

The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then.

The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear.

The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long plan for invasion of Iraq.

The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.

The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.

The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to libraries and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens’ use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.

The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.

There will be the final part four of Dr. Ron Paul's speech tomorrow. Stay tuned ...

I find this very interesting that Dr. Paul mentions the implications of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act that I previously mentioned in this blog. Also, he brings up that both of these Acts were proposed previously and were not passed. Because of the fear brought on by the attacks of 9/11, the conditions changed and the Act were passes without discussion or debate, if even read by Congress. This is classic Hegelian dialecticism which I have brought up a number of times in this blog. [Hegel's dialectic often appears broken up for convenience into three moments called "thesis" (in the French historical example, the revolution), "antithesis" (the terror which followed), and "synthesis" (the constitutional state of free citizens).]

Does all of this sound like the land of the free? We are being manipulated, the question is - Is this for our betterment or for our enslavement? This is as old as time, all the way back to the Garden of Eden, as proven by the following reference. Are we also going to blame others?

Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." Genesis 3:13 (NIV)

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at the address below.
Email: DeltaInspire@panama-vo.com

What Patriotism Really Means Part II

This week the focus has been on remembering those who paid the ultimate sacrifice of giving their lives for their country. Today, we will continue on with a speech that 2008 Presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul gave in Congress on May 22, 2007 titled "What Patriotism Really Means".

Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big government liberals and big government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.

The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.

All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.

Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result.

Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code’s unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.

Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state’s pleasure.

A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.

Protesters against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head. Whether it’s with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots.

If there is a war going on, supporting the state’s effort to win the war is expected at all costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties which they are told is necessary.

The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.

We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.

Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed, that is our policy of foreign interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world’s policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration.

We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.

Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed.

There will be more of Dr. Ron Paul's speech tomorrow. Stay tuned ...

They sacrificed their sons
and their daughters to demons.

They shed innocent blood,
the blood of their sons and daughters,
whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan,
and the land was desecrated by their blood. Psalm 106:37-38 (NIV)

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at the address below.
Email: DeltaInspire@panama-vo.com

What Patriotism Really Means

This week we are celebrating Memorial Day where we honor those that paid the ultimate price for our beliefs and freedoms. Yesterday, I showed how many men and women have given their lives in various wars through our history. Today, I will share the first part of a speech that 2008 Presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul gave in Congress on May 22, 2007 titled "What Patriotism Really Means".

Madam Speaker, for some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government’s abuse of the people’s rights.

I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.

What I have heard all too frequently from the various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.

The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.

Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.

True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.

Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.

It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of danger’s undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.

Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?

Randolph Bourne said that, “War is the health of the state.” With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a “war psychology” to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.

Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe.

This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism, that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.

Tomorrow, there will be more of Dr. Ron Paul's speech. Stay tuned ...

Whenever I speak, I cry out
proclaiming violence and destruction.
So the word of the LORD has brought me
insult and reproach all day long.

But if I say, "I will not mention him
or speak any more in his name,"
his word is in my heart like a fire,
a fire shut up in my bones.
I am weary of holding it in;
indeed, I cannot. Jeremiah 20:8-9 (NIV)

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at the address below.
Email: DeltaInspire@panama-vo.com

Memorial Day

Today is Memorial Day. The unofficial start of the summer season. A time for picnics, cookouts, softball games, and other family outings. But, more importantly, it is the day where we Americans pay homage to all those that have fought and died for this country. It is a huge price to pay to give up your life for your country. Many have done so willingly. I can't begin to express the gratitude felt for those fallen soldiers over the many years and wars.

Here is a summary of the casualties reported.

Civil War (1861-1865) = 618,000 military deaths
World War I (1917-1918) = 116,000 military deaths
World War II (1941-1945) = 417,000 military deaths
Korean War (1950 - 1953) = 33,000 military deaths
Vietnam War (1956 - 1975) = 58,195 military deaths
Persian Gulf War (1990 - 1991) = 1,986 military deaths
War on Terror (2003 - ????) = 4,590 military deaths (Iraq & Afghanistan)

Originally titled "Decoration Day", Memorial Day was first enacted to honor Union soldiers of the Civil War. It was later expanded after World War I to include casualties of any war or military action. It is observed the last Monday in May.

Many believe that this is a small price to pay for our freedom, and a necessary one. This certainly would be true if we had fought all of those wars to protect us, to preserve freedom. But if you've been a regular reader of this blog, you know that there are many reasons never stated in the media why many of these wars occurred. Quite frankly, you would be sick at the sacrifice that these brave men and women who gave their lives considering the real reasons behind those wars.

(For a brief glimpse at the reasons behind the Civil War, see the post History of Money Part VII on Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2008 in this blog. During the following week in February posted in this blog, there is a summary of many of the reasons behind the wars in the 20th century. All of this certainly gives us a new perspective on these patriotic holidays.)

Why do our sons and daughters have to pay such a high price for our ignorance of what is really going on?

Consider the following quotes on this day of remembering:
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, 1743 - 1826

"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies."
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, 1743 - 1826

"Every generation must wage a new war for freedom against new forces which seek through new devices to enslave mankind." Jean-Jacques Rousseau, philosopher, 1712 - 1778

"Anarchy is the sure consequence of tyranny; for no power that is not limited by laws can ever be protected by them." Daniel Webster, statesman, 1782 - 1852

"When all other rights are taken away, the right of rebellion is made perfect." Napoleon Bonaparte, French emperor, 1769 - 1821

"When the government violates the people's rights, the insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties." Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, 1743 - 1826

"Disobedience, the rarest and most courageous of the virtues, is seldom distinguished from neglect, the laziest and commonest of the vices." Oscar Wilde, novelist, 1854 - 1900

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope ... build(ing) a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States, 1917 - 1963

"Those who suppress freedom always do so in the name of law and order." Robert F. Kennedy, US Attorney General, 1925 - 1968

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell, novelist, 1903 - 1950

"Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened." Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister, 1874 - 1965

"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom, unless he be vigilant in its preservation." General Douglas MacArthur, famous US Army general, 1880 - 1964

Think on these quotes the next time you remember those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for us. What will be required of us down the road?

Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour. Matthew 25:13 (NIV)

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at the address below.
Email: DeltaInspire@panama-vo.co

Inalienable Rights

This week the topics have centered around our rights - as citizens, human beings, and as individuals. Today, we will examine some written thoughts from Thomas Jefferson on the subject of inalienable rights.

The government of the United States is the result of a revolution in thought. It was founded on the principle that all persons have equal rights, and that government is responsible to, and derives its powers from, a free people. To Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers, these ideas were not just a passing intellectual fad, but a recognition of something inherent in the nature of man itself. The very foundation of government, therefore, rests on the inalienable rights of the people and of each individual composing their mass. The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, is the fundamental statement of what government is and from what source it derives its powers. It begins with a summary of those inalienable rights that are the self-evident basis for a free society and for all the powers to protect those rights that a just government exercises.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable 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; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776.

Consider these other writings and quotes by Thomas Jefferson.

"The principles on which we engaged, of which the charter of our independence is the record, were sanctioned by the laws of our being, and we but obeyed them in pursuing undeviatingly the course they called for. It issued finally in that inestimable state of freedom which alone can ensure to man the enjoyment of his equal rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Georgetown Republicans, 1809.

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770.

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774.

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

"If [God] has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, He has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode, and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which nature has traced for each individual the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817.

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.

"Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797.

It is quite clear of what the author of the Declaration of Independence thought about our God given rights. No one, especially the government, shall trample on those rights, lest they incur the wrath of God. These rights are sacrosanct, or at least should be within our government.

My how times have changed! Now, our rights are changed in favor of the most powerful or for the most lucrative offer. Meanwhile, the infringements are blamed on faceless and unfindable "terrorists" that supposedly are lurking around every corner. Shame, shame on us for being allowed to be so easily duped.

As with all Saturdays, I will recap key financial indicators that provide valuable insight into what is happening with the financial markets. Two weeks ago, I mentioned that the temporary improvement with the strength of the dollar and decline in precious metal prices appears to be over. This is definitely proving to be true. This week, all of the overall trends are continuing. The price of gold increased this week to close on Friday at $925 per ounce. Silver also increased to $18.22 per ounce, up more than a dollar per ounce from last week. The price of oil continued to set new weekly highs closing at $131.70 per barrel. The US dollar index also fell to close at 71.99. How long can the credibility of the dollar last?

Over the last few weeks I have made comments about several invisible taxes - one being inflation and the other being the increased costs of fuel (oil, gas, and all the derived products). These invisible taxes are devastating on the general public unless their income is going up substantially. This is why a economic collapse of our markets is very likely, the only question being the timing. Why would our government allow such things to happen? If you've been a regular reader of this blog, you have some excellent clues to the answer.

If you see the poor oppressed in a district, and justice and rights denied, do not be surprised at such things; for one official is eyed by a higher one, and over them both are others higher still. Ecclesiastes 5:8 (NIV)

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at the address below.
Email: DeltaInspire@panama-vo.com

Drawing the Line

This week, the topics have revolved around our rights as natural human beings, as citizens, and as individuals. Although there is a lot of overlap among these categories, the point stressed this week is that we have to know what our rights are to ensure that others including the government does not trample on them.

Today, I will cite a very relevant example regarding the First Amendment. It states, "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."

Many of you may not remember Judge Roy S. Moore. He was the Supreme Justice for the Alabama Supreme Court from 2001 - 2003. He was later removed from office for refusing a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the State Judicial building rotunda. Initially, Judge Moore had a wooden plaque of the Ten Commandments above his bench in the courtroom when he was a Circuit Court Judge.

Once Judge Moore became Alabama Supreme Court Justice in 2001, he commissioned the monument to remind people that the Ten Commandments are the moral foundation of US law. He said that it "reflects the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men". However, this stirred up quite a bit of controversy. Several groups including the ACLU of Alabama (American Civil Liberties Union), filed a lawsuit in federal court asking that the monument be removed because it "sends a message to all who enter the State Judicial Building that the government encourages and endorses the practice of religion in general and Judeo-Christianity in particular."

At the center of the controversy was the practiced doctrine of separation of church and state. This doctrine is supposed to guarantee that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination through the government and its laws. Moore argued that "the Judeo-Christian God reigned over both the church and the state in this country, and that both owed allegiance to that God", although they must keep their affairs separate.

Because Judge Moore is a political figure, he lost his job and career for standing up for what he believes. Does his actions violate the First Amendment? Does his removal from office violate his freedom of religion and speech? This issue has and will continue to have strong proponents on both sides.

However, there is something wrong with a country that violates one of its foundations in the Pledge of Allegiance that says "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Why should we totally be removed from our beliefs simply because somebody thinks that it is a violation of the separation of church and state?

To close, here is a poem that Judge Roy S. Moore wrote regarding the moral conditions of our country. It sums it up quite well.

America the beautiful,
or so you used to be.
Land of the Pilgrims' pride;
I'm glad they'll never see.

Babies piled in dumpsters,
Abortion on demand,
Oh, sweet land of liberty;
your house is on the sand.

Our children wander aimlessly
poisoned by cocaine
choosing to indulge their lusts,
when God has said abstain.

From sea to shining sea,
our Nation turns away
From the teaching of God's love
and a need to always pray.

We've kept God in our temples,
how callous we have grown.
When earth is but His footstool,
and Heaven is His throne.

We've voted in a government
that's rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges,
who throw reason out the door,

Too soft to place a killer
in a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby
before he leaves the womb.

You think that God's not angry,
that our land's a moral slum?
How much longer will He wait
before His judgment comes?

How are we to face our God,
from Whom we cannot hide?
What then is left for us to do,
but stem this evil tide?

If we who are His children,
will humbly turn and pray;
Seek His holy face
and mend our evil way.

Then God will hear from Heaven
and forgive us of our sins
He'll heal our sickly land
and those who live within.

But, America the Beautiful,
If you don't - then you will see,
A sad but Holy God

withdraw His hand from Thee.

~~Judge Roy Moore~~

This give us all something to think about. How can we not stand up and demand change? As always, the choice is yours. You must live with the consequences of your (and collectively our) decisions.

Tell the righteous it will be well with them,
for they will enjoy the fruit of their deeds.

Woe to the wicked! Disaster is upon them!
They will be paid back for what their hands have done.

The LORD takes his place in court;
he rises to judge the people.

The LORD enters into judgment
against the elders and leaders of his people:
"It is you who have ruined my vineyard;
the plunder from the poor is in your houses. Isaiah 3:10-11, 13-14 (NIV)

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at the address below.
Email: DeltaInspire@panama-vo.com

Individual Rights Continued

Yesterday, we broadened the subject of natural rights to individual rights, including the rights granted through society, government and legislation. Today, we will continue with some excerpts from 2008 Presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul taken from his 1987 book "Freedom Under Siege".

I see no conflict between the self "ownership" concept associated with natural rights and those who, for religious reasons, believe their life is “owned” by God. One is a political concept and the other a religious concept. Obviously no one can dictate another's religious belief. What one does with one's life and property is a personal decision and it may or may not include religious beliefs. In a free society a person can "turn his life over to God" or squander it as he chooses. The important thing is that the state not be permitted to assume any ownership role of the individual.

A society built on the principle of individual rights rejects the notion that the state should protect a citizen from himself. Government cannot and should not protect against one's own "unwise" decisions. Freedom is impossible once a government assumes a role in regulating the people's eating, sleeping, drinking, smoking, and exercise habits. Once government believes it has an obligation to improve or protect the people physically it will then claim it can protect them economically and intellectually. It leads to a regimented society, hostile to individuals who cling to the notion that their lives and liberty are their own. Conservatives certainly must be reminded that "civil" liberty is the same as economic liberty, and present-day liberals must be told that economic liberty deserves the same protection that the written and spoken word under the First Amendment. Preemptive regulations of either literary commercial activity, for any reason, are prohibited in a free society. Fraud and libel are crimes that, when proven in a court of law, must be punished.

The most important element of a free society, where individual rights held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence. Initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it is supposed to be for the benefit of their individual or group of individuals. Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense.

This means that all associations are voluntary and by mutual consent of both parties. Contracts drawn up without force or fraud must be rigidly adhered to. This sounds reasonable, and most people would agree this outline of mutually agreed-to associations. But it also means that free people have the right to discriminate – in choosing a spouse, a friend a business partner, an employer, an employee, a customer, etc. Civil rights legislation of the past thirty years has totally ignored this principle. Many "do-gooders," of course, argue from the "moral high ground" for their version of equal rights, knowing that they can play the sympathies and the guilt of many Americans. Yet the real reason for some of these laws is less than noble. For instance, minimum wage laws are popular, but the proponents rarely admit that this protects higher paid union-jobs and it increases unemployment.

Total freedom of contract and association is what the "pursuit of happiness" is all about. Once this principle is violated, the gradual but steady erosion of our liberties can be expected unless the principle of individual rights is reestablished.

Free choice means that the incentive to produce is maximized, since it's assumed that we can keep the fruits of our labor. In a free society, an individual benefits from wise and frugal decisions and suffers the consequences of bad judgment and wasteful habits. The state should neither guarantee nor tax success, nor compensate those who fail. The individual must be responsible for all of his decisions. Because some suffer from acts outside of their control, we cannot justify the use of violence to take from someone else to "help out." People in need are not excused when they rob their neighbors, and government should not be excused when it does the robbing for them. Providing for the general welfare means that the general conditions of freedom must be maintained. It should never be used to justify specific welfare or any transfer of wealth from one person to another.

A free society permits narrow self-interest but allows for compassion and self-sacrifice. Greed, when associated with force or fraud, is not acceptable. A free society is more likely to survive if compassion is voluntarily shown for the unfortunate than if the poor are ignored. A healthy self-interest associated with a sense of responsibility for family and friends is far superior to a welfare state built on foolish self-sacrifice and violent redistribution of wealth.

A society that holds in high esteem the principle of individual rights is superior in all ways to a society that distorts the meaning of liberty and condones the use of government coercion.

Dr. Ron Paul, "Freedom Under Siege", 1987

Tomorrow there will be more on our rights. Stay tuned ...

"Among my people are wicked men
who lie in wait like men who snare birds
and like those who set traps to catch men.

Like cages full of birds,
their houses are full of deceit;
they have become rich and powerful

and have grown fat and sleek.
Their evil deeds have no limit;
they do not plead the case of the fatherless to win it,
they do not defend the rights of the poor.

Should I not punish them for this?"
declares the LORD.
"Should I not avenge myself
on such a nation as this?" Jeremiah 5:26-29 (NIV)

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at the address below.
Email: DeltaInspire@panama-vo.com

Individual Rights

This week the focus has been centered around our rights. Some rights were so important to our founding fathers of our country that they amended them to the Constitution which were named the Bill of Rights. Even more basic than those are natural rights that are innate to all human beings. Today, we will focus on individual rights, which are a different subset including all legally defined rights as well as the previously mentioned ones.

Individual rights identify a boundary of just social interactions, in the presence or absence of government. Individual rights are an individual's moral claim to freedom of action. Such rights may be respected or recognized by others for reasons of reciprocity, contract, pragmatism, or as a moral imperative. Also some theorists believe an individual can forfeit their rights if that individual does not exercise reciprocal respect and restraint.

To have a more political view of this topic, the excerpts below are from Chapter 1 of 2008 Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul's 1987 book titled "Freedom Under Siege".

If a precise understanding of rights is not generally agreed upon, a political system designed to protect individual liberty cannot be achieved. The signers of the Declaration of Independence declared that rights are inalienable; i.e., incapable of being lost or surrendered. To avoid any misunderstanding, something this important must be clearly defined. Lincoln pointed out the danger of a vague definition when he said:
The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty, but in using the same word, we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty means for each man to do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the products of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things called by the same name liberty. It follows that each of the things is, by the perceptive parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.

The world today, just as in Lincoln's time, is still in need of a good definition for the word liberty. But more than that, we need determined people who believe in and are willing to defend liberty. Those who dare to use the word liberty when promoting violence and tyranny must be clearly exposed. The tyrants must be identified and never confused as friends of freedom. If a battle must occur – which inevitably it must since liberty and tyranny cannot coexist – let it never be supposed that two factions advocating liberty are battling one another. The conflict must be clearly between liberty and tyranny.

In order to minimize the confusion, we must do our best to define rights. A right is a natural or God-given permit received at birth, to act in one's own self-interest with total control over one's own life and property as long as others are not injured nor their property taken or damaged. Liberty does not come as a grant from the state. The state can only expect those funds from the individual required to guarantee that the rights of all are equally protected. Ideally those funds would be collected through a voluntary agreement between the state and each citizen. The role of the government in a free society is limited to settling disputes when the voluntary courts fail. Minimal police activity is warranted when private security falters. The protection of our geographic borders providing adequate national security from outside threats is a proper function of a government dedicated to protecting individual freedom.

Individuals in a free society must have the right to keep the fruits of their labor if the concept of individual rights is to have any meaning.

There is no conflict between what is called "natural" rights and "God given" rights. The Founding Fathers said we were endowed by our "Creator" with our rights, but they also had no qualms with the term natural rights. It certainly seems reasonable that life and liberty come as a magnificent gift from the Creator. Obviously these cannot come from a government official, an act of Congress, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Magna Carta. Quite to the contrary, tragically governments over the centuries have done a lot more to destroy this natural gift than they have to secure it.

Tomorrow, there will be more excerpts from Dr. Ron Paul's book regarding individual rights. Stay tuned ...

Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;
maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

Rescue the weak and needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked. Psalm 82:3-4 (NIV)

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at the address below.
Email: DeltaInspire@panama-vo.com

Natural Rights

Yesterday, I began to delve into the subject of legal rights, in particular the Bill of Rights which were amended to the Constitution to stress their importance. Today, we will look at a deeper level of rights, rights that we are born with as human beings, or natural rights.

Natural rights are defined as the concept of a universal right inherent in the nature of living beings, one that is not contingent upon laws or beliefs. The concept of a natural right can be contrasted with the concept of a legal right: A natural right is one that is said to exist even when it is not enforced by the government or society, while a legal right is one created by the government or society for the benefit of its members. The question of which rights are natural and which are legal is an important one in philosophy, religion, and politics.

Natural rights, in particular, are the rights of the individual, considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. Some consider these rights the same as human rights even so far as to say there is no difference between the two. The idea of natural rights go far back in history. The idea that certain rights are inalienable (incapable of being surrendered or transferred) is found in early Islamic law and jurisprudence, which denied a ruler "the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being."

Many philosophers and statesmen have designed lists of what they believe to be natural rights; almost all include the right to life and liberty, as these are considered to be the two highest priorities. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, substituted "the pursuit of happiness" in place of the basic right of property. This historic document is based on natural or "unalienable rights" as being endowed by the Divine Creator or Nature's God to every human being, arguing that it was "self-evident" truth that human beings by their very nature inherently have and seek to experience the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But prior to this, the first philosopher who fully made natural rights the source of his moral and political philosophy was Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). Hobbes argued that it is human nature to love one's self best and seek one's own good (this is a view known as psychological egoism). John Locke (1632–1704), was another prominent Western philosopher who conceptualized rights as natural and inalienable. Locke assumed that humans were by nature rational and good, and that they carried into political society the same rights they had enjoyed in earlier stages of society, foremost among them being freedom of worship, the right to a voice in their own government, and the right of property.

The modern idea of natural rights grew out of the ancient and medieval doctrines of natural law, i.e., the belief that people, as creatures of nature and God, should live their lives and organize their society on the basis of rules and precepts laid down by nature or God. With the growth of the idea of individualism, especially in the 17th cent., natural law doctrines were modified to stress the fact that individuals, because they are natural beings, have rights that cannot be violated by anyone or by any society.

Before the Age of Enlightenment from Locke's time, rights that were inborn and could not be forfeited (de facto) came from anti-slavery and other democratic movements. Starting with the Stoic philosophy to the Reformation period to the Enlightenment period, these concepts evolved with society. The Stoics held that no one was a slave by their nature; slavery was an external condition juxtaposed to the internal freedom of the soul (sui juris). Seneca wrote: "It is a mistake to imagine that slavery pervades a man's whole being; the better part of him is exempt from it: the body indeed is subjected and in the power of a master, but the mind is independent, and indeed is so free and wild, that it cannot be restrained even by this prison of the body, wherein it is confined."

The Stoic doctrine that the "inner part cannot be delivered into bondage" re-emerged in the Reformation doctrine of liberty of conscience. Martin Luther added during the Reformation: "Furthermore, every man is responsible for his own faith, and he must see it for himself that he believes rightly. As little as another can go to hell or heaven for me, so little can he believe or disbelieve for me; and as little as he can open or shut heaven or hell for me, so little can he drive me to faith or unbelief. Since, then, belief or unbelief is a matter of every one's conscience, and since this is no lessening of the secular power, the latter should be content and attend to its own affairs and permit men to believe one thing or another, as they are able and willing, and constrain no one by force."

Even to the most recent times, the preamble to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that rights are inalienable: "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." This was adopted by the United Nations which defined that these were human rights guaranteed to all people.

So, what does this all have to do with our recent times? Everything. When laws like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act take away our rights in the guise of protecting us from supposed "terrorists", we are getting close to giving up our natural and inalienable rights. When we can't bank where we want for suspicion of money laundering, when we are denied rights of habeas corpus (illegal imprisonment by not being allowed to present our case before a court or judge), these are some of the examples of having our life and liberty infringed upon.

Are we willing to accept these measures? Do we want to live in fear and be driven like sheep, or assert our inalienable rights? As always, the choice is yours. What will you do when your rights are challenged?

There will be more on our rights tomorrow. Stay tuned ...

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy. Proverbs 31:8-9 (NIV)

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at the address below.
Email: DeltaInspire@panama-vo.com

The Bill of Rights

This week, I will focus on a subject that we are not well educated on in our school system, despite the fact that this is one of the most important foundations our country was built on - our legal rights. First and foremost, is the first ten amendments to the Constitution, namely the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory. They were first introduced by James Madison in 1791 as a series of amendments to the Constitution. They were then ratified by a three fourths majority of the states during the First session of the United States Congress.

Below is a summary of these very important rights.

• First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

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.

• Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.
  

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

• Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

• Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

• Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
  

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

• Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

• Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

• Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

• Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

• Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.

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.

It is our duty as citizens to know the rights we have as citizens and to exercise those rights whenever and wherever necessary. If we do not stand up for our rights, we will be abused and enslaved by whomever is in power. The purpose of the founding fathers to insist that these rights be amended so that we would not forget that we are a free nation, not a nation that is controlled by other parties, either foreign or domestic.

So as a citizen of this country, are you prepared to understand and defend the rights that your forefathers so bravely fought for over 225 years ago? Or, are you so complacent and ignorant that you will be manipulated into being an economic and statutory slave of the ruling class?

As always, the choice is yours.

There will be more on our basic and legal rights this week. Stay tuned ...

Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,

to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless. Isaiah 10:1-2 (NIV)

If you have comments or questions, please feel fee to contact me at the address below.
Email: DeltaInspire@panama-vo.com

The Energy Non Crisis

This week the topics have revolved around the immense impact oil has on the world economy, politics, and even wars. As important as these matters are, today's topic will blow your mind.

There have been many reports in the news the last few years regarding Peak Oil. Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum production is reached, after which the rate of production enters its terminal decline. If global consumption is not mitigated before the peak, an energy crisis may develop because the availability of conventional oil will drop and prices will rise, perhaps dramatically. This is what they want you to believe.

However, as with a lot of media hype, that is all this is - hype to scare you and justify the higher gas prices they are charging. This is another invisible tax they are inflicting on the public. You might ask why I am so emphatic that this is all hype. I have done my own research on the subject and have met oil industry experts that have verified that it is all hype.

Let's start with Lindsey Williams. Lindsey is a ordained Baptist minister that served as chaplain to the crews that were completing the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline in the mid seventies. Lindsey has authored six books, the most telling is "The Energy Non Crisis" written in 1980. (I have personally met and talked to Lindsey a number of times over the last several years. The information he personally witnessed is mind blowing until you start to understand the purposes behind the deceptions.) In his book, he described that because he was given executive status by the oil companies, he was given personal access to private meetings with the global oil barons. In 1976, the oil companies building the pipeline and exploring for oil on the northern slope of Alaska have found several huge oil deposits capable of supplying the United States for over 200 years. These include Prudhoe Bay, Gull Island, and Kuparuk oil fields.

However, you will not hear about these from the government or the media. They have been capped and shut down. Prudhoe Bay has been producing oil from the early 70's and is capable at producing more than 2 million barrels of oil per day. In 2001, the production has been lowered to less than 1 million barrels per day, but this is not because of limited capacity or draining reserves. In August 2006, BP announced that they were shutting down the Prudhoe Bay field because of a severe corrosion in the oil transit line and a small spill. This is the only field of the three that has been used for production and pumped through the Trans-Alaskan Oil Pipeline.

It has been confirmed that the Prudhoe Bay field is over 100 square miles. Kuparuk is over twice that size and has barely been touched. Gull Island is 5 miles north of Prudhoe Bay in the Beaufort Sea. Gull Island is estimated by seismology reports and numerous test drills that it is at least four times the size of Prudhoe Bay. This is larger than all the oil deposits in Saudi Arabia, and we are not even touching it!

All of this is documented in Lindsey Williams' book. Furthermore, it was endorsed and validated by Colorado State Senator Hugh Chance, who visited the site in 1975. Senator Chance, who wrote a foreword in Lindsey's book, was appalled by the actions taken by the US government to shut down the wells and allow us to be continually dependent on Mid-East oil.

Furthermore, there have been a number of shale oil deposits found in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado that is also estimated to be larger than those in the Middle East. There is another shale oil deposit in Alberta Canada that is estimated at 1 trillion barrels of oil. Why would our government not want to produce this oil and no longer be dependent on foreign oil? Because they have a plan to form a one world government that is run by the international World Bank, the IMF, and the United Nations. The unique sovereignty of the United States with financial solvency is not in the plans, but to bankrupt the livelihood of the American public and enslave them in economic servitude is the plan.

This is shocking, but sadly very true. Don't believe the peak oil hype. Even OPEC has never acknowledged imminent Peak oil concerns. In OPEC's 2007 annual book, which discusses issues such as future supply position, forecasted demand, and ultimate recoverable reserves (URR), the authors state that the conventional oil resource base is sufficient to satisfy demand increases until 2030 at a price of $50-60 per barrel, increasing afterwards to account for inflation.

As with all Saturdays, I recap key financial indicators that provide valuable insight into what is happening with the financial markets. Last Saturday, I mentioned that the temporary improvement with the strength of the dollar and decline in precious metal prices appears to be over. That statement is looking to be more accurate. This week, all of the overall trends are continuing. The price of gold increased this week to close on Friday at $902.40 per ounce. Silver also increased to $17.04 per ounce. The price of oil continued up slightly to close at $126.48 per barrel, a new week ending high. The US dollar index also fell to close at 72.83. How long can the credibility of the dollar last? Be prepared for the house of enormous debt to collapse.

This is all sobering truth. Do we really live in the land of the free? Or are we just cogs in the economic system to produce debt from our labors? As always, the choice is yours.

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said:
"Wake up, O sleeper,
rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you."
Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Ephesians 5:11-16 (NIV)

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at the address below.
Email: DeltaInspire@panama-vo.com

The New Fall of the Roman Empire

This week the topics have revolved around the fact that oil is the world's currency and has many affects on economics, politics, and even war. In doing research on these topics, I found an article today that summarizes the exact points that I've made over the last week, except of course the recent happenings. This article was written by Ed Haas on January 28, 2006 for NewsWithViews.com titled "Iran, Bourse and the US Dollar".

Here is Ed's article below.

On November 10th 2005, the Muckraker Report published an article that described one of the unspoken reasons why the United States had to invade Iraq; to liberate the U.S. dollar in Iraq so that Iraqi oil could once again be purchased with the petrodollar. See The liberation of the U.S. Dollar in Iraq.

In November 2000, Iraq stopped accepting U.S. dollars for their oil. Counted as a purely political move, Saddam Hussein switched the currency required to purchase Iraqi oil to the euro. Selling oil through the U.N. Oil for Food Program, Iraq converted all of its U.S. dollars in its U.N. account to the euro. Shortly thereafter, Iraq converted $10 billion in their U.N. reserve fund to the euro. By the end of 2000, Iraq had abandoned the U.S. dollar completely.

Two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was ended, the country’s accounts were switch back to dollars, and oil began to be sold once again for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with the euro. Universal global dollar supremacy was restored. It is interesting to note that the latest recession that the United States endured began and ended within the same timeframe as when Iraq was trading oil for euros. Whether this is a coincidence or related, the American people may never know.

In March 2006, Iran will take Iraq’s switch to the petroeuro to new heights by launching a third oil exchange. The Iranians have developed a petroeuro system for oil trade, which when enacted, will once again threaten U.S. dollar supremacy far greater than Iraq’s euro conversion. Called the Iran Oil Bourse, an exchange that only accepts the euro for oil sales would mean that the entire world could begin purchasing oil from any oil-producing nation with euros instead of dollars. The Iranian plan isn’t limited to purchasing one oil-producing country’s oil with euros. Their plan will create a global alternative to the U.S. dollar. Come March 2006, the Iran Oil Bourse will further the momentum of OPEC to create an alternate currency for oil purchases worldwide. China, Russia, and the European Union are evaluating the Iranian plan to exchange oil for euros, and giving the plan serious consideration. [As mentioned in Wednesday's post, the opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse did not occur until February 17, 2008.]

If you are skeptical regarding the meaning of oil being purchased with euros versus dollars, and the devastating impact it will have on the economy of the United States, consider the historic move by the Federal Reserve to begin hiding information pertaining to the U.S. dollar money supply, starting in March 2006. Since 1913, the year the abomination known as the Federal Reserve came to power, the supply of U.S. dollars was measured and publicly revealed through an index referred to as M-3. M-3 has been the main stable of money supply measurement and transparent disclosure since the Fed was founded back in 1913. According to Robert McHugh, in his report (What’s the Fed up to with the money supply?), McHugh writes, “On November 10, 2005, shortly after appointing Bernanke to replace Greenbackspan, the Fed mysteriously announced with little comment and no palatable justification that they will hide M-3 effective March 2006.”

Is it mere coincidence that the Fed will begin hiding M-3 the same month that Iran will launch its Iran Oil Bourse, or is there a direct threat to the stability of the U.S. dollar, the U.S. economy, and the U.S. standard of living? Are Americans being set up for a collapse in our economy that will make the Great Depression of the 1930’s look like a bounced check? If you cannot or will not make the value and stability of the U.S. currency of personal importance, if you are unwilling to demand from your elected officials, an immediate abolishment of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the fiat money scheme that the banking cartel has used for nearly a century now to keep our government and our people in a state of perpetual debt, than you are faced with but two alternatives, abject poverty, or invading Iran.

The plans to invade Iran are unspoken, but unfolding before our very eyes [see yesterday's post for more details]. The media has been reporting on Iran more often, and increasingly harshly. For the U.S. government to justify invading Iran, it must first begin to phase out the War in Iraq, which it is already doing. Next, it must portray the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a threat to the region and the world. Finally, once naive American people are convinced the “weapons of mass destruction” that were to be found in Iraq are actually in Iran, coupled with the almost daily media coverage of Iran’s nuclear power / weapons program aspirations, and what we will soon have on our hands is another fabricated war that will result in tens of thousands of civilian lives being lost, all because the political elected pawns in Washington DC lack the discipline to return our currency to a gold or silver standard, end the relationship with the foreign banking cartel called the Federal Reserve, and limit the activities of the U.S. government to those articulated in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution for the United States of America.

When a wayward and corrupt fiscal policy and fiat currency, coupled with runaway government spending, forces a nation to only be able to sustain the value of its currency with bullets, the citizenry of the country involved in wars primarily to sustain its currency have historically first became slaves to their government, and then to the nations that finally conquer them. If you question the validity of such a premise, or whether it could happen to the United States of America, study the fall of the Roman Empire. If you read the right books on the subject, you’ll quickly discover that towards the end of the Roman reign, the Roman Empire was doing exactly what America is doing today; attempting to sustain a failed fiat money system with bullets.

Understanding fiat money is not an easy task, and the Federal Reserve, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund have purposely made it that way. They do not want the American people to realize that the money in their wallet loses its value with each new dollar that they print. They do not want people to understand that our money does not become money until it is borrowed. When the Federal Reserve has money printed, when it is in uncut sheets of paper, it is not yet money. After it is cut, bundled, and placed into the Federal Reserve vaults, it still is not money. It only becomes money once it is borrowed. Consequently, if all debt were to be paid, if the United States didn’t have an $8 trillion national debt and the American people were debt free, and if all loans of U.S. dollars made to foreigners were paid in full, there would be exactly zero U.S. dollars in circulation because it will have all been returned to the vaults of the Federal Reserve. This might seem hard to fathom, but it is the gospel of fiat money.

The major news media in the United States, fed by Washington DC which in turn is fed by the Federal Reserve, literally, has already begun conditioning the American people for invading Iran. Media accounts of Iran’s nuclear ambitions along with amplification of the potential instability and core evilness of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is setting the stage to spring the invasion of Iran on the American people. There does appear to be a direct correlation between the winding down effort underway in Iraq and the increase of anti-Iran rhetoric. How American soldiers ultimately arrive in Tehran is uncertain at this time, but it is reasonable to expect that if the Iran Oil Bourse opens for business in March 2006 as planned, it will only be a matter of time before the United States will have to blow it up.

If the United States invades Iran, or if Israel starts military actions by launches missiles at Iran’s nuclear power facilities, which then opens the door for the United States to intervene, most Americans will believe that our military actions in Iran will be to defend freedom and liberty while spreading democracy, when the truth is that we’ll be fighting a war in Iran because of our nation’s relationship with the Federal Reserve, a so-called bank that is not owned by the federal government, maintains no reserve, and isn’t a bank at all, but a cartel.

Just like our war in Iraq, Americans and foreigners will die in battle so that the historical power bankers and brokers; cartel members such as Rothschild, Morgan, Lehman, Lizard, Schrader, Lobe, Kuhn, and Rockefeller to name a few, can continue collecting interest on every single U.S. coin and dollar bill in circulation, while controlling the U.S. Congress to the extent that the U.S. taxpayer becomes the collateral and lender of last resort to cover bad loans and unpaid debts that these institutions create by loaning money to third world countries, some of which are devout enemies of the United States. Remember the $400 billion savings & loan bailout approved by the U.S. Congress during the Reagan Administration? America is still paying for it – you and me, and so will our children and grandchildren.

It is well overdue for Americans, every American, to do whatever it takes to fully understand the relationship between the United States and the Federal Reserve, along with the grave consequences of our current fiat money system; for even if the United States wanted to continue to sustain the supremacy of the U.S. dollar with bullets, it is historically, impossible. When bullets become the commodity to secure a currency, it is a clear sign of devastating calamity looming. To ignore the warning signs, is to suffer like you have never suffered before, or to die. Harsh words, but true.

Ed Haas, 2006

If you are a regular reader of this blog, all of the points Ed made have been covered in this blog. I thought it would help reaffirm the overall big picture of the influence the global international bankers, the World Bank, and IMF to hear someone else summarize the effects. I especially like the comparison to the fall of the Roman empire.

The moves Iran is doing is influencing future actions of the international money cartel. Will the US go to war to protect its dollar and the economy? Only time will tell, but it does seem likely considering the events of the last few years. The Neoconservatives (Neocons) appear to stop at nothing to achieve their means. (Neoconservatism emphasizes foreign policy as the paramount responsibility of government, maintaining that America's role as the world's sole superpower is indispensable to establishing and maintaining global order.)

Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others. Daniel 11:3-4 (NIV)

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at the address below.
Email: DeltaInspire@panama-vo.com