The Challenge of Change



Barack Omama ran for the White House on a platform of change, but the reality of that is that he gave us changes that have devastated the economy, devalued the currency, destroyed the housing markets, and left an adjusted unemployment rate that is well into double digits.

But the President alone only sets the standards by which his policies are brought forth, and that is through the legislative branch of federal government. Both Obama and Congress have failed to uphold their oaths of office and instead have ripped the Constitution to shreds with legislation and dictatorial Executive Orders that are rapidly eroding the solvency of the United States of America.

The problem is not centered in the debates and ideologies of the two major parties, but in the people who time after time, vote for candidates from those same two parties. With very little exception, both Democrats and Republicans promise lower taxes, reduced spending, smaller government, and all manner of entitlements to their voters, and then taxes are raised, spending increases, government expands, and entitlement are reduced, at the expense of the nations tax payers! . Doesn't that enrage you as much as it does me?

It seems blatantly obvious that the privately-owned media is also supporting this sham, by biasing their coverage of the candidates, and even ostracizing them when it seems that their policies are based on the Constitution, and then they are labeled too extreme and radical for the nation. And what makes the press so knowledgeable and informed that they know what's best for the nation? I would think that someone like a Bill O' Reilly would make a suitable Representative or Senator, and would win easily. No, they are not interested in taking on that responsibility themselves, they would rather back a candidate that will make good television shows later when they succeed or fail in office.

But the challenges we all face run deeper than what is regurgitated for daily TV and radio. Alex Jones and Glenn Beck are too extreme and radical for the likes of Excellence in Broadcasting, and their favorite son, Rush Limbaugh will attest to that. But while the privately-owned media are thumping for the Rick Perrys and the Mitt Romneys, with an occasional nod toward Newt Gingrich, they all ignore Ron Paul, who, by any standard of worth, stands far afield from all of the rest, but not for the reasons they expound.

Dr. Paul's reputation is that of "Dr. No" in Congress for he never fails to give a "nay" response to any bills that call for tax increases or that in any way violate the Constitution. And for that he is labeled as a radical and worse.

It seems to me that concerned Americans made it clear in 2010 how they feel about government, and more specifically, the representatives they choose to manage the affairs of the nation. But somehow the Republicans think that it is an attack on the left-wing liberals and a thumbs-up for the Republican party itself. It was NOT.

We are fed up, figuratively and literally with the federal government. We are tired of blame and excuses offered instead of actions that produce results. Albert Einstein said, "The epitome of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting different results." Isn't that what we all do when we pick between two parties?

Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian presidential candidate but even the Libertarian Party nominated a different person.It would not surprise me if Ron Paul received more votes as a write-in than the Libertarian Party choice. But it was apparent that Ron Paul was ignored by the media and the Republican Party, which he has served in Congress as a member of for 12 consecutive terms.

The media wants to portray this election as about jobs, health care, economy, foreign affairs, Medicare and Social Security. Even media favorite and crony capitalist Rick Perry called the Social Security system a Ponzi Scheme and was criticized by some and praised by others for it. Only Ron Paul told the truth, that it is unconstitutional to require all taxpayers to pay for it. Now that does not mean that you cannot have a public retirement system, it just means that it must be a choice, an option, but not a demand.

The Constitution was written with provisions for Congress to lay taxes, but those taxes must be apportioned. By amending the Constitution to allow direct taxing without apportionment, Congress now has a method by which it could match taxes to spending, thereby capable of spending more, so long as the People don't complain too much. But then we got the Federal Reserve Act and now Congress could borrow money from the central banks, and create more debt that will be paid by future generations of tax payers.

But that is only the tip of the iceberg as they say, because the Federal Reserve prints money that has no inherent value, only that which the Fed determines, and that is all based on the labor of the American People against the number of dollars in circulation. The more money there is, the more prices go up. Not all at once mind you, but after the banks and other financial institutions use it to drive up stock markets. Then the tangible assets begin to inflate as the value of the dollar shrinks. Gold costs more because the dollar is worth less, not because gold is worth more. Gold and silver were fixed assets used for currency since recorded history and was the currency used here in American until Nixon finally put the nail in the coffin of real money.

Ron Paul understands this and will return us to a currency of worth with a Congress that will support him. So the challenge we face now is not only to get Ron Paul in the White House, but to replace Congress with fresh faces, faces with backbones to make the radical changes required to restore the united States of America to the Constitutional Republic it was created to be. I would imagine that British Parliament and the Crown felt the demands of the founders were extreme and radical also. It will take extreme and radical action to restore us to the nation of liberty that is our birth right.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[75] 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 to 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." -Declaration of Independence

The challenge is before us. Either way, history will show the success or failure of this nation by the resolve or neglect of We the People.

The Challenge of Change Rating: 4.5 Diposkan Oleh: petingi sadang