Sunday, January 13, 2008

Undercurrents of Evil...and Good

[Imbedded Practitioner of the Dark Arts]

I am really way behind in my reading (which means amount of reading desired and number of books purchased versus number of books I actually have time to read), so one of my resolutions is to schedule more time for catching up on that. But I am also way behind in my movie-viewing, which is sort of a subset of the above problem, so I have made a less-important resolution to schedule more time for that, as well.

Among “the above” is Harry Potter reading (which yes, I consider important); I haven’t had time to go beyond the third book. And last year, I didn’t even manage to go see the latest Harry Potter movie, The Order of the Phoenix (number 5, I think), but during this past Christmas season, I did buy the DVD, and last night I finally watched it.

Now, for reasons that I will explain in this blog, as the story of that movie unfolded, my dropped jaw nearly crashed a hole in the floor of my apartment. And it wasn’t due to Dumbledore’s kick ass battle against Valdemort that made Yoda’s heretofore kick ass fight at the end of Star Wars number III look in comparison like a little girl’s tea party, as wonderful as that scene with Dumbledore was! No, it was the basic PLOT, itself, that blew me away. But let me explain….

For the past couple of decades, I have been reading, first articles and then books, by John Taylor Gatto, and then later I was able to attend a lecture by him in person, and finally, I bought several audio tapes of his other lectures. I greatly admire the man (I’d put him the category of being one of my personal “gurus”) and have found him to be immensely inspirational, not just about children, but about how we all learn.

It was also mostly from John Taylor Gatto that I developed a profound appreciation for our country’s founders (especially Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington) and of their amazing wisdom and self-education, and wish I could emulate their example much more than I manage to. I had an appreciation of these men before, demonstrated right down to the fact that ever since I was in the sixth grade, I have abbreviated my first name in my signature the way that several early American heroes abbreviated that same first name when they signed the Declaration of Independence (a signature is a picture of one’s own image of self), but Gatto greatly deepened my appreciation of them for me.

And from working at a school as I do, I can verify one of the concepts that Mr. Gatto propounds, that children are voracious “learning machines”, you don’t have to “make” them want to learn, and, in fact, what happens in school, instead, is that the children’s energy gets diverted, derailed, imprisoned, and indoctrinated—in other words, seriously messed with until it is nearly destroyed (much less so, and in some cases not at all, in private school, because the Powers That Be realize that they need SOME people to be leaders of the masses). By the time kids are in high school, they hate school, and some even become murderous in that hate. What happened to that sweet, precious, learning-voracious child?

It was from Gatto that I first heard of the idea that state-run public schools were specifically designed to not educate children, but to mold them into docile subjects of that very same state, which had taken control of children away from their parents. This began, of course, in the most liberal and therefore most “big government” state in the union, Massachusetts, but it also quickly occurred in other similar controlling states (such as New York, naturally, where Gatto, himself, rebelliously taught for so long), but, fortunately, much less so in more education-freedom-oriented states.

For those who happen to be interested in this subject, here is where the states stand if you are interested in educational freedom for the parents and students and minimal control by the state (all this data comes from one of the most amazingly brilliant and useful books I have read in the past several years, Strategic Relocation, by Joel M. Skousen--THAT one, when it arrived a couple of weeks ago, I sat down and read from cover to cover at one sitting, and now I am studying it with a fine-tooth comb):

Most free, least educationally-controlling states:

New Jersey (now that is a shock)
Rhode Island

Next best are those states that have very little state regulation of education:

California (believe it or not—but that is changing)
New Mexico

Then come those states with a medium amount of regulation (which is too much):

Hawaii (huge hotbed of liberality)
Washington (ditto)
Oregon (ditto)
South Dakota
South Carolina
North Carolina
West Virginia

And finally, the educational control Hall of Shame, states where based on this one issue alone, you shouldn’t live if you have school-age children you care about:

New York
Pennsylvania (except for the Amish, who managed to secure a special dispensation)
North Dakota

Seeing Delaware on that list, I had to nod my head in huge “well that certainly fits” agreement, because I have recently learned that in Delaware, that immense level of liberal state control has even moved into college. I read an article about a course (and there are several articles on the Internet about this) required in order to graduate at the University of Delaware that chilled me to the bone. It was about diversity and race relations and the principle it teaches is that white people (and ONLY white people) are inherently racist, and the cause of all the world’s problems stem from the actions and character of white people. At the University of Delaware, they teach this course on a “required outcomes” basis, a concept I also just recently learned about, which means that in order to pass the course (and if you do not, then you have to keep taking it until you do), you have to answer the test questions and write essays indicating your successful acceptance of the state’s approved indoctrination, that (if you are a white person) you accept your racism and historical culpability and present the steps you are taking to atone for and correct those self-deficiencies. Now if that isn’t standing at the threshold of 1984’s room 101, or Harry Potter having to write in his own blood several pages of “I will not tell lies” about something he factually knows is true , I don’t know what is.

I realized that if I even chose to stay at such a “university”, I would have understood that what I needed to do would have been to pretend and lie in my answers, the concept of which strongly goes against the grain of my being truthful in all of my communications and my lack of interest in wasting my time on games of mediocre conformity…in other words, my sense of personal integrity would have been seriously compromised.

But how much worse and self-damaging must it be to receive this level of indoctrination day in and day out by elementary school children, some of whom are hardly even old enough to be taken out of the arms of their mothers. And if these innocent babies fail to comply with destroying their individual truth, esteem, and integrity, they are in danger of being declared to have an attention deficit disorder or some such “defect” and prescribed a powerful mind-and-mood-altering drug like Ritalin.

[I accept the slight possibility that there may seriously be in some cases such a malady as ADHD, where drug intervention is required, but without a doubt, this diagnosis is way too frequently misapplied and the result of that more and more is Columbine-type school shooters (acting out) or else young adult suicides (acting in—thank you to Jungian analyst Alice Miller for the insight into these responses), such as the incredibly talented would-be comedian I became friends with when I did film work, who hung himself a couple of years ago and his parents and girlfriend informed us at the memorial we held in his honor that when he was a child, he had been put on a very heavy course of Ritalin medication.]

I watched the documentary, ”Who Controls Our Children” (which currently is posted on Google video, so you can watch it, too, if you are interested), put out by the Pennsylvania Parents Association (Johnstown, Pennsylvania), which explains what “outcomes based education” is and how it works, but not only in Pennsylvania, because it is a federal program (so how about that—instead of the local school board, or individual state controlling your child’s education, now the state can sign on to federal control of it). Well, this really rang a responsive chord within me, which meant that some more dots were connected in my understanding, because John Gatto had written that early industrialists were behind indoctrination-education for their own purposes, and now their foundations (such as the Ford Foundation or Rockefeller Foundation) and the lobbyists working for them are behind it. Gatto said that big steel-maker Carnegie wrote (and here happens to be that Pennsylvania connection) that big industry did not need free and critical thinking entrepreneurs (who would, after all, be competition to the big industrialists), but docile workers comprising a nation-wide hive of labor, and the schools had the power to create this kind of worker and that is now what outcome-based education is seeking to make. Incidentally, a docile populace is also what the state, itself wants, but let’s not forget who is behind the state (which is not a reality in and of itself, but is only a conceptual tool) and uses it for its own ends of police control.

I think there are students today who would even go along with this concept; that if school didn’t help prepare you for a job, what good is it? (This is actually appropriate for a vocational school and there is nothing wrong with that at all, but as a college student, I fell into this, myself, in a university, to my lifelong misfortune.) But the point is that you don’t want a job, you don’t want to be an employee or a wage slave, you want to be the master of your own fate, which is well within your ability if the genius self you were born with was allowed to be recognized, nurtured in its growth, and felt the freedom to manifest its creations in the outer world. This benefits us ALL as a society, by the way; we would have been so far beyond the stars right now if we weren’t hampered by this level of evil control of our spirit.

And make no mistake, it is evil, because it lessens the full majesty of the creation that you are.

And this evil apparently never ever really goes away, but bides its time for a while until the time is ripe for it come out and wreak its havoc on humanity once again, which, in more modern times, seems to happen when the next generation is finally comfortable and has let its guard down. But it is a very, very old and ancient evil…my favorite example of that level of ancient planning is the most recent version of the movie The War of the Worlds (directed by Steven Spielberg, starring Tom Cruise), in which the aliens had buried underground in the earth their tripod killing machines tens of thousands of years before there were even people on the planet in preparation for the eventual invasion of the earth for the purpose of colonizing and exploiting the blood and bodies of those future people. I don’t remember this particular “ancient” concept appearing in the original H.G. Wells novel, but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, it was quite effectively presented in the Spielberg movie.

This is a very important concept, because people today wonder why it would be that industrialists would set up a program generations ago that would not benefit them personally, and that their heirs step by step continue with this work even thought it might not yet benefit THEM personally. And since this doesn't make sense, the average person rejects it as impossible.

Of course, in the Christian religion, this evil existed prior to God’s creation of the earth and the effort against humanity has been going on since the beginning of people.

War of the Worlds is cool, because it ends up that “God’s eternal plan” is greater than evil’s ancient plan.

After reading Joel Skousen’s book, there is a sense of “evil returning” once again in the form of Communism (now deeply infiltrated into the governments of the United States and Europe), which, according to the studies of Joel, never really went away anyway; that the “fall of the Soviet Union” was a planned ruse that successfully caused the American people to let its guard down. And, of course, it never even pretended to go away in China, despite how apparently “capitalist” they have become, the Communist party never let go of its totalitarian control. Of course, please realize that the yoke of socialistic principles is never for the rulers, anyway, or for their perverted puppets and lackeys, only for the bulk of the people (the “hive”). However, like all other all forms of evil, the dice are loaded against it…however, real people suffer terribly meanwhile. As an example, the Third Reich lasted only twelve years instead of the thousand years that it thought it would last, yet how many people suffered and died world-wide because of it?

I’ve always liked the Harry Potter books, because it is my belief that it resonates with children’s internal awareness of their own genius, not yet buried away or destroyed. While reading those books, they recognize that they are, themselves, “Wizards” in the midst of a society of Muggles, and maybe for a while this understanding will survive and maybe, just maybe NEVER fully go away. One can only hope that it will work this way, and I am very, very sure that it will, for some (there are those whose spirits somehow manage to get through this process at least somewhat intact).

So now we come to that amazing fifth movie in the series, The Order of the Phoenix, that I saw last night. Harry already KNOWS that the great evil of Lord Voldemort has returned, because Harry has seen him during the battle he had in the previous book and movie, and now also continues to experience him in his dream state and in his mind (which instead of demonstrating insanity, actually is a deeper level of knowledge). Harry’s friends believe him, because they trust in him, but also the great wizard, Dumbledore, Headmaster of the Hogwarts School of Wizardry, understands that Voldemort has returned. However, the Ministry of Magic, which is the government of the Wizards, has instigated a campaign against Harry and Dumbledore, setting them up as the cognate of our present-day “Conspiracy Theorists” to be ridiculed and rejected out of hand, just as you reading this blog branded me the minute you saw me say that the Soviet Union never fell and that Communism had infiltrated our federal government. When I first heard of this myself, I didn’t doubt it, but saw, instead, how much it explained what was going on--suddenly the pieces began to come together. (If you want to pursue this further, you might want to investigate how President Clinton signed a presidential directive to the military that states that the U.S. will no longer launch nuclear missiles on the warning that Russia has launched theirs, but will absorb Russia’s first strike, and this directive has not been cancelled or rescinded by the Bush administration. Clinton’s directive ONLY applies to the former Soviet Union, not other nations. We apparently do reserve the right to launch a pre-emptive strike on, say, Iran.)

How incredible it was to see in this film that the Ministry not only created a constant media blitz to discredit those who knew the truth, but also set to work taking over Hogwarts school and sent there an Inquisitor whose mission was to get rid of all the free-thinking teachers and administrators, and who turned the school into an outcomes based institution, indoctrinating the students into the Ministry’s desired form of docility in the face of great and destructive evil. I hated that Inquisitor with every fiber of my being; it was fascinating how the actress’s portrayal of that character was so right on that it made my skin crawl right off my bones.

The Order of the Phoenix could not have done a better job of presenting a model of what is actually going on in the world today, to the extent that I almost think that J.K. Rowling, herself, is initiated into the true facts of what really is happening in the world--but to believe that is to at the same time minimize her artistic creation. I can only say with assurance that this is an outstanding example of how when one does enter into the artistic and creative realm, they truly are in touch with deep wisdom and truth. Which is why these books resonate so powerfully with so many children and open-minded adults. Spiritual truth is so much more powerful and compelling than temporary lies.

Thursday, January 3, 2008

The Political Compass

Maybe it's just because I know more now that I did before, or maybe it's because I know less, but I think for most people, this upcoming election is going to be a confusing mess for most people and they will need some kind of framework to help them sort it out so that they can vote the way they really want in a way that will help them and will also help their society as a whole.

For example, I eat lunch almost every day with a friend at work who considers herself a died-in-the-wool Democrat. She is from Massachusetts, met and had lunch with Ted Kennedy when she was younger, and hates George Bush with every fiber of her being. If you were ask her who she is voting for for president in this upcoming election, she would say, "whomever the Democratic candidate is," because she feels that no matter what, she would never be able to vote for a Republican.

However, if you ask her what the two single most important ISSUES are, she would say the Iraq War, as in getting out it, and illegal immigration, as in getting the illegals who are now here deported, and making sure that no others can come in.

Why does she want us out of Iraq? Well, the most important thing is that she has two daughters of draftable age, and her feeling is that those girls are being sent to Iraq over her dead body. The draft hasn't been reinstated, of course, but the fear is that if the war continues much longer, we will have to have a draft.

Secondly, she views the Iraq War as Bush's war, so if it has anything to do with him and his ideas, then she doesn't want any part of it.

Why she wants illegal immigrants out of here is pretty easy to explain by the simple fact that she lives in Southern California. Actually, it doesn't even have to be Southern California any longer; I was so shocked to see the small city of Novato in Marin County (north of San Francisco) infested with hordes of illegal aliens at every street corner. You even had to shoo them away when you tried to get gasoline; there were some hovering around, sitting on the concrete curbs that surrounded the various gas pumps. They really were everywhere and, of course, this isn't even talking about you having to wait in the emergency room to get some medical attention, or have your kids try to find a desk in a public school.

So which Democratic candidate should she support based on these two select issues? See the problem?

For a long time, I've been aware as a voter how the one axis of decision,"left" versus "right", or how it normally turned out, Democrat versus Republican, was an inadequate scale by which to judge candidates.

But now I have learned of a system that uses two axes, The Political Compass, that helps bring it all more into focus.

The Political Compass still has as a horizontal axis, the familiar Left to Right opposition, which is the ECONOMIC LINE, with Socialism on the left and Laissez Faire Capitalism on the right. The more you agree with having a governmental system of taking care of people via diminished private property rights and enforced taxation and applying those funds to government-created welfare programs given out to the benefit of various select groups of people, then the more to the left you are. On the other hand, the more you believe in the right to private property and in having a free market where prices and the availability of resources are determined by supply and demand and efficient production by those who had taken on personal risk in hope of sufficient reward, without external interference, then the more to the right you are.

But there is a vertical axis, too, on the Political Compass, and that is the Authoritarian versus Personal Freedom SOCIAL LINE. Do people have the right to order their own affairs, or do they need the strong hand of an authority outside of themselves (such as a government) to keep them in line? I suppose at the most free point of the line the situation would be "the freedom to choose to do anything you want, even if it hurts YOU, so long as it doesn't hurt or interfere in the freedom of another." So if for example you want to take drugs (so long as you don't steal to obtain them, or drive a car or fly an airplane while on them), who else would have the right to say that you shouldn't be able to do so? Nobody would have that right, but you, yourself, to determine your own actions.

But if you feel that people could not, or should not control their own affairs, but require experts, or those who have a greater might, or feel that they have a superior moral standing, to make those determinations for them, then you stand on the Authority end of the axis.

Governments, of course, and the people who desire to hold office in them (and thus obtain greater personal power) tend to be on the side of AUTHORITY (so long as it is THEY who are the authority!).

Some of the problems we have today is that people can no longer imagine having no authority over them; they willingly subject themselves to such rule (and thus, slavery), because an opposing idea is inconceivable to them. Or if they think that they could handle that kind of freedom, they sure don't think their fellow man could, so they want there to be an authority to keep their neighbor in line, and if they, themselves, have to submit to that same authority, well, it's a small sacrifice to pay in order to keep the peace and to feel safe. Notice I said "feel" safe and not "be" safe. But I believe that to truly be safe, or at least safer, in the world, requires a self-reliant and mutually-cooperative populace of equals (equal opportunity, not equal outcome), not a horde of subjects who have given everything over to an external power to rule, protect, and save them (which it will ultimately fail to do). Benjamin Franklin, one of the main founding minds of our country, said that those who give up their freedom in order to gain a little safety will end up losing both. Isn't that happening to us, today?

So here, for our reference, is a graphic of this system:

There is a test you can take at the site linked above in order to get an idea where you might fit on this graph. Here is where I came out:

While it is not surprising to me how much on the SOCIAL freedom side I placed, I know that a year ago, I wouldn't have placed so far on the right, because I was like so many others; for so long we have swallowed the socialistic propaganda we have been fed, so that no longer can people think of "big oil companies" without thinking "greedy big oil companies". Despite their utter dependence on oil, people nevertheless want to hamper big oil companies by, for example, taxing their "windfall profits". But exploring, finding, drilling for, refining, bringing to market, and selling petroleum and its products is a hugely costly and risky business. It requires incredibly large investments and a long lead time before those investments begin to pay off. Well, these big oil companies have laid their money on the line and they are bringing in the product; do they not deserve to reap the benefit of their efforts? Of course they do, and some of that benefit will be used to keep the machinery going for some more. Throw a monkey wrench into that and you won't even be walking to work, you won't have a job, because your former employer couldn't function without petroleum, but maybe you will be able to plow with a mule a field you sharecrop.

Let's use a different arena...J.K. Rowling who struggled so long and lived so meagerly, wrote the first Harry Potter book by hand, at a cafe. This was her own creation, brought forth by the sweat of her brow and her steadfast discipline to bring this creation "to the market".

Where and how does J.K. Rowling stand, today? She is the second richest woman in England. Does she not deserve the full benefit of the risks and struggle she made, and the reward for her marvelous and well-loved creation that has brought joy to so many people and nearly single-handedly made children into readers again? Will the profits she will make on her most recent novel in the series be considered "windfall profits," deserving of increased taxation? I think not, and you shouldn't think it either, or else whatever raise you next get for some achievement at work that earned you a promotion, or the extra salary you earn due to that master's degree that you earned for yourself taking night classes while you worked full time should all be taxed away, too.

Maybe it isn't "greedy capitalists" against "the people". Maybe it is greedy lazy people against those who are actually doing the work and bringing home the bacon. Where does the government get the money it gives to the people on the welfare programs and to the entitlements? From other people who MADE the money. From you. Take a look at your final annual income statement--it's easy enough to find, the year 2007 only recently came to an end. What percentage of your total earnings did you give out in taxes? Federal, State, Social Security, Medicare, SDI, etc. Multiply that percentage by the number of months in the year and that's how many months you were WORKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE, strangers out there. Did you really choose to give that much of your labor away to others, or was it forced on you? Well, it was the politicians who forced it on you, and it was people who voted them in. Maybe even your votes contributed to it. (But maybe not any more!)

I think these quadrants are easier to understand when you can see some names on them:

And here are some leaders operating in the world today:

What I find it interesting are those people down in the southwest quadrant, the Gandi and Dalai Lama quadrant. Gee, shouldn't we be down there? Well, Gandi ran around in a loincloth; I guess he didn't care about property rights so much. And the Dalai Lama has no home; he and his people are living in India kind of like the Katrina victims who needed help getting out of New Orleans were welcomed by Houston. Maybe that's unfair, the Tibetans were "victims" (of the Chinese), but the socialist side of the economic line is FOR victims. But somebody has to pay the bills.

As far as I can see it, just about the only way you can have that southwest quadrant, which is sharing of property and assets without being forced to by authority, is to have some kind of commune or spiritual community with shared values. There haven't been too many of those that have been successful, but I can see how it could work out if everybody agreed. After all, one of the tenets of the FREEDOM axis is that people have the freedom to order their affairs any way they want, just so long as other people's freedoms aren't harmed, so if everybody agrees to live in a mutually beneficial socialistic system, then that is their right. I don't view Gandhi or the Dalai Lama as being, or having been, corrupt. This isn't rule by Stalin. Would it work in a country as large as the United States? Maybe, but it's hard to imagine. We might think we have a Gandhi, but end up with a Castro.

Okay, so now for the chart on where the CANDIDATES stand (if whoever put this together was accurate):

Wow, virtually all of them (except Kucinich and Gravel) are somewhere in the AUTHORITARIAN/CAPITALISTIC quadrant, EVEN Ron Paul, the freedom candidate, and even Hillary Clinton, whom I and others have blithely branded as a socialistic candidate. Fortunately, not a Hitler or a Stalin among them, which helps me to breathe a little bit easier. And notice that few of them are all that different from the much-disapproved-of President Bush. Maybe this is just a sign of how the powers that be simply WANT us to have that kind of a candidate ONLY, so that is all we get.

For me, coming out like Milton Freedman on the FREEDOM/CAPITALISM quadrant (the pure Libertarian quadrant), the closest candidate for me is Ron Paul, who the media continually crows has nothing but crackpots for supporters. Well, he does graphically show that he stands out from the bulk of them (again except for Kucinich and Gravel), but hardly "crackpot".

He, by the way, is who my friend at work should vote for, even though he is a REPUBLICAN. He says he will pull us out of Iraq IMMEDIATELY, and he also wants to clear out the illegal aliens (he's from Texas, so that makes him like us in California).

For me, the Iraq War isn't the big issue, because I have decided that I have absolutely NO idea what is going on down there, so I have little qualification for making a decision. Unlike many people, I don't get all my news from one or two sources (who have a definite agenda of manipulating the public). I get news from a huge diversity of sources, conservative and liberal, religious and athiest, domestic and foreign, and I have heard so many conflicting stories, from it's a total mess to we are actually accomplishing what President Bush set out to do, that I simply have to guess at the truth. And what I guess is (a) we got Saddam Hussein out of there, (b) there were no weapons of mass destruction after all, (c) our government has been so far successful in preventing any other serious terrorist attack, so they more or less can truly say "Mission Accomplished" based on the basic mission they presented regarding going in there. But to stay further, will further results be worth it?

I believe what Ron Paul says when he says that (a) the war was illegally declared Constitution-wise, (b) we are invaders in foreign soil which agitates terrorists against us (just as we would be, say, if we had been invaded by China...or let's say Japan, ha ha ha), (c) we can't afford it, our dollar is nearly collapsed as it is and we are now in debt up to our eyeballs, (d) the founders of our country warned against foreign entanglements, and (e) we can protect ourselves with our soldiers back at home and with a renewed, refreshed, and more efficient intelligence system. So all that sounds good to me.

To me the absolute most important issues are to prevent the steady enroachment of our civil liberties (so I want to pull toward the FREEDOM pole of the vertical axis, which is "south") AND to prevent the destruction of our FREE ECONOMY (so I want to pull toward the FREE CAPITALIST side of the ECONOMIC pole, which is "east"), so who on that chart is the most "southeastern" candidate running, but Ron Paul. And so that is what makes sense to me.

If Ron Paul does not get the nomination, who is next in line for me? I have to place a ruler on that chart at a diagonal from northeast to southwest, starting at the southeastern corner, and slowly move up to see who that line touches after Ron Paul. Surprising to me, who that ends up being is Hillary Clinton. She's closer to Ron Paul than I ever would have thought (but not THAT close!--she's just closer than the others). Hillary, good Lord, who woulda thunk it? (But she's corrupt, I think, which Ron Paul isn't; for Ron Paul to lose the nomination, which the media is doing its damnedest to make happen, would be a terrible loss.) After Hillary, it's kind of a crap shoot. The worst though, would be that awful Biden-Obama-Dodd-Richardson-Romney line. And horribly, both Obama and Romney are being pushed as really strong candidates. On the INTERNET, just like Ron Paul is strong, so is Obama, so THAT'S a bad sign.

Romney's the most AUTHORITARIAN of the bunch, so that is really bad. Edwards is the most SOCIALISTIC of the bunch (again excluding Kucinich and Gravel), which is also bad.

Anyway, if nothing else, it's all fascinating, and I still have to comfort myself by saying that despite where they stand, we can thankful we have no Hitlers or Stalins in there.

If you're somebody who never even considered Ron Paul (probably because of the media's hatchet job), here is a WEALTH of information. And once you see what the media is really doing, it will make you hopping mad.

And then if you want to REALLY get into it, please check out this INCREDIBLE ARCHIVE of Ron Paul writings. You will see that this brilliant and scholarly man has been around for quite a long time, and has been very prolific. He's certainly not new on the scene like that fraud Huckabee. I've known of Ron Paul for decades. It seems that whenever something bad happened in Congress (which was a lot), Ron Paul was always that lone individual who did what was RIGHT.

And by following the Constitution and trying to continue what the founders of this country carefully set up, you could hardly do wrong.