ENIGMA CURRY

Ron Paul on the Dollar, Gold, and Oil

Everyone that drives a car knows that gasoline has gotten a lot more expensive over the last few years. But very few people seem to correctly understand why this is. Ron Paul, in his latest debate appearance, laid it out quite plainly, but it takes keen and willing ears to fully appreciate it:

The value of oil hasn't changed at all — instead, the value of our dollar has tanked. The value of oil, relative to gold, has sat unchanged since 2000 (and even well before that). This means that if you got your paycheck in gold instead of dollars you'd still be paying the same price for gas as you were a decade ago.

The gas prices are not the fault of greedy capitalists. No gas company is "gouging" you. On the contrary, seemingly high gas prices are not due to any free market force at all, but rather due to the fascist cooperation of a complacent, apathetic, congress and the Federal Reserve. Our government has an insatiable appetite to print money out of thin air to support a massive military industrial complex as well as a socialist, redistributionist, welfare state. This monstrously inflates the money supply — robbing the value of your dollar.

I decided to prove this for myself, that the golden price of oil is relatively stable. I downloaded historical gold spot prices, as well as historical crude oil prices. Using a bit of Python and matplotlib, I produced the following graph:

I'm not an economist, so I was fairly pleased when I saw that what I came up with correlated fairly well with the graph that the Wall Street Journal published. This graph shows that oil costs 3.5 times as many dollars as it did in 2000, and yet the oil price in gold has barely changed at all in the past eight years.

Everyone should be putting their money into an account with interest of some kind, and not just letting their money sit around uninvested. But at the rate that the dollar is losing its value, even "high" interest investments aren't paying out faster than the current rate of inflation (and as the above graph shows, that inflation is a lot more than the 3% the government would tell you). If we simply legalized alternative, market based currencies (as opposed to raiding and plundering them), we could have much larger gains on our investments as well as not losing any value on any money left uninvested.

This issue has been the core of Dr. Paul's career since the 1960's. It has taken the American people a very long time to wake up to this issue, and so it is an immense credit to his character that he has shown an undying vigilance, these many years, to the pursuit of liberty. I too, have hope for America.

(If anyone is interested, here is the python code (as well as the data files) used for the graph. )

Who owns your body?

The most important questions usually have remarkably simple answers. I was listening to Michael Badnarik's radio show from last Friday, and being the great iconoclast that he is, he asks one of these important, yet simple questions:

Who owns your body?

Here's the simple (and complete) answer: I own my body!

I disagree with a great number of people on a great number of things, and yet I still get along with them. We can reach a modus vivendi — we can agree to disagree. The interesting thing about the question at hand is that it is more powerful than most other political questions; it even makes others look mundane in comparison. If I were to meet someone who believed that they did not own their body I can honestly say that I would never be able to relate with this person, nor truly understand anything that they personally believed.

In fact, I cannot think of any possible way any rational person could disagree with the statement that you own your own body. And yet, the relatively mundane political disagreements I have with other people are antithetical to the concept that we (supposedly) both agree with: I own my own body.

If I own my own body, it would follow that:

1. I cannot rightfully be enslaved.
2. I can eat, drink, smoke, inject, or osmose anything I want into my own body.
3. I own the products that I produce with my own hands. No one can rightfully steal them from me.
4. I can freely contract with other people (who also own their own bodies) and agree to exchange my products for theirs.
5. I can kill myself or contract with someone to do it for me.

Consequently, if you live in a world where these rights are not respected, and you allow them to be disrespected, you are not free, and you do not own your own body. Here is an example of such a world:

1. A constitution is drafted on the principle that the government would protect the sovereign rights of individuals. And yet there is disagreement. . . and compromises. The final draft of this constitution disregards its founding principles and implicitly supports slavery. It would take another 80 years for this constitution to reverse this indiscretion.
2. Even though such a promise to never enslave was made, the practice would continue through the enforced conscription of men to fight in foreign wars.
3. Laws of taxation are modified to allow the government to steal from the wealth of individuals, as much as they cared to, for whatever reason.
4. Money is created by this government, "out of thin air". Laws are enacted to compel businesses to accept it. Numerous law enforcement agencies ensure that no one uses any competing (or more valuable) form of money.
5. Certain beverages are disallowed through legal means.
6. Certain herbs are disallowed through less than legal means.
7. The writ of habeas corpus, the law that literally protects the right to protest the detention of your own body, though protected by 327 years of precedence, is utterly abolished and left only to the ruler's discretion as to who receives this "privilege".

Does this world sound familiar? I hope so. The trend of these united States is to not respect your body. If you believe that you own your body, you should never allow your government, let alone anyone else, to take away the rights of your body.

Think about this, not only when you vote, but every single day, in everything that you do. Do you have the self respect to assert your rights? Do you have the respect to assert MY rights? If you do, I sincerely hope that you will approach any political decision through this concept: I own my own body. You own your body. I have no right to take away your rights, nor you to me.

The time to choose how this country will behave on a federal level is fast approaching. Once you come to the realization — that you own your own body — you will realize that there is only one person running for president who believes that very same thing: Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney bribes supporters to induce donations

I hate to stay on the topic of Mitt Romney, there are plenty of bad things about most of the other presidential candidates too.

But… Mitt makes it so damn easy for me to pick on him: the official Romney contribution page now offers you a tiered selection of Christmas gifts bribes in exchange for your donation:

Obviously Romney doesn't need the money; he has plenty of his own to do with as he pleases. Ever wonder why he has so many supporters at all the rallies he goes to? Because they are the same supporters at every rally. He buses them from place to place at his own cost.

To win though, Romney needs more than just his own money. He needs individual contributions so he doesn't get slaughtered by you know who when it comes time to report real donations to the FEC.

Instead of getting random SWAG for my donation, I'd rather give my money to Ron Paul and get a much greater gift: a president who will restore the constitutional boundaries of this great, but fallen country.

5 reasons to not trust Romney

What does Mitt Romney really believe in? Does he support the sovereignty of We the People of this constitutional republic? On at least a few occasions he has. When asked about abortion, Romney has recently said that he wants individual states to decide for themselves. Despite Romney's floundering on the issue in the past, he has come to the correct and constitutional stance on the issue. Kudos, Mitt. The federal government has strict constitutional duties, and legislating on abortion is not one of them.

But does Romney actually believe that the federal government should generally be held accountable to these restrictions, or only when it's convenient for him?

Here are five examples that I was able to quickly find that show that he definitely will not protect the limitations that we have imposed on our federal government:

He supports ALL of Mass. gun laws

Sure, Massachusetts is not held accountable to the second amendment, but they have some of the most oppressive gun laws around. Romney also says that he supports all of these laws personally. Does Romney think critically enough to not support these same laws on the federal level? It's a scary prospect, at best.

He doesn't believe in a States' authority to enact drug laws

Nowhere in the constitution do We the People grant the federal government the privilege to regulate "drugs". The states have implicit authority in this regard by virtue of the 10th amendment. Now listen carefully to this guy's question:

He didn't ask Mitt for his opinion on marijuana. He didn't ask Mitt whether or not marijuana should be illegal. He asked Mitt what he would do if a state were to exert its sovereignty and to democratically decide that marijuana will not be illegal in said state. Romney clearly shows in his response that he would disregard the state's clear right to do just that. He believes that marijuana should be made illegal in every state of this country. Period.

He would put someone in jail for prescribed medical marijuana use

No, he doesn't say so. Instead, he decides to run away like a kid that just got punched in the face… by a guy in a wheelchair… with muscular dystrophy. By default, this says to me that Romney would indeed put someone in jail for using medical marijuana. If he would not, then why is he not sure enough of himself to say so?

Ron Paul is sure of himself. He tells the same guy that he will never use federal power to put ANYONE in jail for marijuana use. Ron Paul understands his strict constitutional duties as president and is not afraid to declare them:

He wants to federally require VChips in all new computers

There are literally hundreds of existing methods to block pornography on computers. These are cheap and highly available to parents. There is simply no need for the federal government to step in and save the day. Even if this were not the case, there is no federal authority to control private companies in this way.

And yet Romney feels he can legislate his own morals on everyone else:

He supports legally defining Marriage.

You want a definition of marriage? I have one. Marriage is a voluntary contract between people defining whatever relationship responsibilities and privileges they desire. The government is neither a party to this contract, nor do they get to dictate or "define" any of its terms. Romney says that he believes that 1-Man, 1-Woman and one (silent) government together form a marriage and that this definition should be reflected in our laws. Sorry, but We the People have not explicitly given you that authority.

He thinks Obama is Osama

This is #6 of 5. #6 because this one doesn't have to do with the constitution at all, but really shows how blatantly stupid Romney can be.

I mean come on, you can here him say "Osa.." right before he corrects himself and says "Barack Obama" instead …. twice. It's almost as if Romney is concentrating so hard on reciting something rather than actually critically thinking about his statements.

By all means, vote for Romney if you sincerely like him, but have no delusions that he supports your own or your fellow humans' sovereign rights.

Ron Paul — the top-tier candidate

For Ron Paul, the white house must seem not so far away as it once was.

Yesterday, the campaign with the help of a very active grassroots organization raised over $4.2 Million… In 24 hours. This is above and beyond what so called "top-tier" candidate Mitt Romney was able to do back in January when he set the republican record for most contributions in one day at $3.1 Million. Ron Paul has also broken the record for any one-day internet donations for any candidate, in any election, ever. Ron Paul is a bona fide top-tier candidate any way you spin this (Ron Paul on Daily Kos?!? WTF!).

Sean Hannity can say all he wants about how polls are spammed in favor of Paul, but can you spam real cash? Remember, Remember, that the 5th of November is V-Day — V for Vindication day.

Mitt Romney is an unapologetic fearmonger

I know a few people who want to vote for Mitt Romney because they believe he's very efficient and that every program he touches "turns to gold." But Mitt Romney is no panacea, in fact he's just like the rest of the neocons in Washington.

Last week, Governor Romney released one of the most horrifying campaign videos I've ever seen. Most political commercials are so diluted that they make just about anyone feel good. You know the ones I'm talking about — the ones with the sounds of trumpet and dialog like "he's an honest man, caring, he has a plan that will increase jobs." When you make a video with such a supreme lack of substance, there's not a lot to disagree with. This is not that video:

This is the most blatant fear and war mongering video I've ever seen. Sure, the neocons have been making these points for years. But when have you ever seen them in such a recorded and rehearsed fashion?

There was a lot of information in such a short video, so let's take it point-by-point:

Violent, Radical, Islamic Fundamentalism is this "century's nightmare".

I won't deny that there are violent, radical groups (some of which are Islamic) that are menacing and terrorizing. But by no means do these groups hold a monopoly on this stigma. Even our own government supports these same philosophies when it suits their fancy. In a previous age, when the bad-guy-de-joeur wore a red star on his uniform, the U.S. funded Afghan mujahudeen guerrillas to fight against the USSR. This wasn't the U.S. simply coming to the aid of an ally; this was a provocation that started with the U.S. funding the mujahudeen a full six months prior to any USSR invasion of Afghanistan. We were in the Cold War with the USSR, and we saw the efforts of jihadists in Afghanistan as a means to an end. It was in the U.S.' interest to promote these jihadists then. What's so different today?

All throughout history, the U.S. (and a few other countries) have been far more violent and radical than any small terror cell.

Jihadists want a world-wide Khalifah

Update: My friend gandhi pointed out that I indeed heard the wrong word here. My apologies. The word Romney used was Caliphate not Khalifah. I'm not an expert on the etymology here, but I believe the two words are linked.

Nice big word there Mitt. I'm sure most of your future constituency understands what that means (ha!). When you say that word along with other mean sounding words it's easy to think it's derogatory without even knowing the definition of the word.

Basically, every single muslim is supposed to be a Khalifah, a representative / steward of god on this earth. A Khalifah is roughly the same as a missionary in the christian sense — someone who upholds the principles of god and spreads his message. The Khalifah Institute does propose a plan to spread islamic principles throughout the world, they even go as far as to call for jihad. They specifically mention however, that "this is not to be a jihad of the sword, or of guns, bombs [nor] violence… that would be wrong."

Maybe Mitt is talking about some other Khalifah movement. However, for something so important as to require offensive wars I require my elected public servants to be specific. To simply say we need to fight Jihadist Khalifahs is not only insulting, but dangerous.

The U.S. is a country of Freedom Lovers

Oh, I wish this one were true. The truth of the matter is that this hasn't been the case for a very long time. If Americans love freedom, then it would follow that Americans would keep their government accountable to the very Constitution that incorporates it. If Americans were free, then they should be able to demonstrate the basic, timeless, qualities of free men and women.

Can you build on your land without a permit? Can you educate your own children without mandated curriculum and permit? Can you drive from one city to the next in a car without a permit? Can you acquire a gun without a permit (filling out the NICS is a permit!)? Can you marry the one you love without a permit? Can you die and have your body buried without a permit? Can you stay out of jail if you consume a prohibited substance? Can you stay out of jail if you tell your government that you will not fight their wars? Can you stay out of jail if you tell your government that you will not pay for something you find abhorrent? I submit to the casual observer of current events that every single facet of life in this country is subverted and has been made unfree.

Permits are permission. If you need permission you are not free. Taxes and the draft are involuntary, and equate to slavery.

Jihadists hate us for our freedoms

It's true that many jihadists (and Muslims in general) hate secularism and materialism. Did they destroy four planes and three buildings on 9/11 because of this? No. Blowback is real. The countries that have experienced terrorist bombings in the past decade are not arbitrary. They have been selected. All of these countries have had a military presence in the middle east. Switzerland has a strict non-interventionist policy and you don't see them being a target.

Republican Congressman Ron Paul has spoken very clearly about the issue of blowback. Listen to his calm, yet sobering words accompanied by this short PBS documentary confirming the reality of blowback:

Romney will increase Intelligence spending

Romney wants to increase funding of our intelligence agencies but he won't listen to them in the first place! The CIA has numerous times talked about the concept of blowback. After the Iran coup d'etat in 1953, the CIA produced a (now declassified) memo describing how blowback can be a massive consequence of what the CIA was trying to accomplish (a complete overthrow of an existing government) warning CIA operatives that "few, if any, operations are as explosive as this type."

Romney will increase military personnel by at least 100,000

The U.S. has over 1.5 Million troops deployed worldwide. We have the strongest military presence of any country in all of history. We are Pax-Americana — a bona-fide Empire. 70% of Americans want out of Iraq. We need to support our troops by bringing them home!

Romney will monitor all telephone calls

Romney says he wants to monitor all calls Al-Qaeda makes coming into America. I say he wants to monitor all calls whatsoever. If his source of information on Al-Qaeda is coming from monitoring telephones, how can he know where Al-Qaeda is calling from before he listens to them? It's the classic chicken or the egg problem. If you want to listen to all calls Al-Qaeda is making, you have to listen to all the calls. If you know where Al-Qaeda is calling from, then what the hell are you doing sitting on your ass listening to their phone calls?

This isn't about listening to Al-Qaeda at all. This is about increasing control.

Romney will make sure the U.S. stops Iran from acquiring Nuclear weapons

Gah. At least he's forthcoming about it this time. Last week he said he'd have to consult his lawyers to see if pretty please, maybe, possibly, he could bomb the shit out of them without having to ask Congress for permission. Romney, real patriots protect the Constitution!

Even if Iran had the capability, let alone the desire, to build nuclear weapons (I doubt they do), what's the difference between Iran having nuclear weapons and the 10 or so other countries that have them? What is intrinsically wrong with having nuclear weapons? Whatever that answer is, it should be applied equally to us as well as to them.

Ron Paul is the only moral choice

The people that believe in Romney's War on Jihadists would call Dr. Ron Paul an isolationist and that this makes him somehow irresponsible. This is so very wrong on many accounts. First of all, Dr. Paul is in no way an isolationist. Is it an isolationist view to think that we should not fuck with the rest of the world by establishing military coups around the world, displacing legally and democratically elected leaders? Is it an isolationist perspective to think that we should be cultivating friends throughout the world by trading and having open dialog with them instead of provoking war by subverting their governments? How would Americans feel if another country were to do the same here? Wouldn't we too feel a little retaliatory? War is avoidable, because blowback is avoidable: just mind your own business and make friends in the process.

Ron Paul is your only moral choice for a conservative president, no matter if you're anti-war or even if you believe in "Just War" theory. Mitt Romney's war theory, just as any modern neoconservative, is fear-based. It lacks any historical perspective and is entirely unjust.

Thanks a million, Ron Paul.

$1.2 Million in under 7 days. That has got to be some sort of libertarian record.

Thank you Dr. Paul! I know, I know you don't want to take the credit, this really is our revolution. However, it's thanks to you that we are so organized at this particular time. Liberty minded folk are a very opinionated bunch. It takes someone with true resolve and staunch views on liberty to get these kind of results. I applaud you and your campaign team for the tremendous push you have given us.

I know that my money is going towards not only a bright and hopeful election, but towards the enlightenment of thousands of people to the spirit of a free America. It's these people, that are new to the concepts of liberty, that you have made the most impact on. These are the people who will soon make the loudest and most passionate call for freedom the world has ever heard.

The Tao of Libertarianism

I first read the Tao Te Ching five years ago. I was at a different stage of my life and it didn't really have a very strong affect on me. I think I dug way too deep into it and I didn't understand its plainness. Today I read the Tao of Ron Paul and am reminded of the Tao, but this time I think I get it.

Chapter 57

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

老子 Lao Tzu (~600 BCE)

It is amazing to me that something written 2500 years ago can apply so well to today. We cannot solve our problems with more government — not now, and at no time in the past. There is precedent to this fact that spans all of history if we simply bother to look.

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote of confidence in ourselves; confidence that we can take care of ourselves without force. A vote for any of the other current presidential candidates is a vote of incompetance. To vote for anyone else is to believe that humans are flawed and cannot accomplish anything productive on their own - that we must mold their very lives so that they may not fail.

To any action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If our leaders subsidize all our needs and desires, we become lazy, less productive and we take away from the same source of wealth that our leaders drew upon in the first place. If we attempt to endlessly police the world, it will blowback in our faces. If we attempt to lower crime by prohibiting certain items, we will simply create more criminals at the cost of $600 per second.

There is a natural order to a peaceful and civil society. This is called the Tao. Government is not the Tao.

Ron Paul on the IRS

I'm pretty critical when it comes to the IRS, and I'm sure many people would think my beliefs on the IRS (short answer: abolishment) are too extreme. However, Congressman Ron Paul has recently spoken on this issue and has a very compelling argument that few would be able to refute:

Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion – a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels?

He is talking about what would happen if we were to completely abolish the IRS today. What would happen? The US would have 1/3 less cash than it would otherwise, but the remaining 2/3 would still be more than the entire 2000 budget. This points out two things to me:

1. The IRS would be really easy to reform, if not outright abolish. The Government would still have a plethora of avenues to aquire revenue, including constitutional methods: tarrifs and excise taxes. Even if we just abolished the IRS and did nothing else, the government would still have as much incoming revenue as it did in 2000!
2. If the government would have the same revenue as it did in 2000 by cutting out an entire 1/3 of the budget, what does that say about the government's spending habits?? That means a massive increase in the budget in just the past six years.

What is so important that we're doing now that we weren't doing back in 2000? The war? Not many today will argue that anymore. We can end the war, we can get rid of all the pork spending in Washington if our Congressman are allowed to at least read the bills before they're passed and by so doing we can easily restore this nation to using constitutional methods of taxation. It just takes a bit of (re-)education:

[Education] is favourable to liberty. Freedom can exist only in the society of knowledge. Without learning, men are incapable of knowing their rights, and where learning is confined to a few people, liberty can be neither equal nor universal. –Dr. Benjamin Rush (1786)

Update: As soon as I posted this, someone mentioned to me after reading the above mentioned article by Mr. Paul that he never specifically mentions abolishing the IRS. True, it wasn't explicit; It was implicit. Mr. Paul speaks out about this a lot, so it's not very difficult to find where he stands on the issue:

By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing. Ron Paul (2002)