Sound Currency, the Federal Reserve and a Libertarian’s Call to Action

Sound Currency, the Federal Reserve and a Libertarian’s Call to Action

The Libertarian Party, to which I must confess that I am a member, has never really taken on the constitution/composition of either the Republican or Democrat parties. In reality, the Libertarian Party is more an amalgam or synthesis of the two. It’s in that sense that many disaffected Republicans and Democrats seem to be filing into the Libertarian ranks over these past few years. Whereas the other parties force more conformity and singleness of message, Libertarians, in our laissez-faire stance to most things, allow broad opinions and vast beliefs even to the detriment of message.

Libertarians, for the most part, just want to be left the hell alone. However, among our ranks are environmentalists (which depending upon degree of ‘orthodoxy’ can remind me of rabid Statists), anarchists or rather anarcho-capitalists, Liberals/Democrats and Republicans with firm beliefs of social/civil rights, e.g. gay marriage, anti-war subset, and lastly there is the Ron Paul subset with a firm belief in the Constitution and rooted in Austrian Economics. This is by no means a complete list of all people who define themselves as ‘libertarian,’ but it does help to illuminate a general discordance within the party.

Considering the problems that our country is facing, and the dire consequences of inaction, I find it necessary for the Libertarian Party to find an issue which impacts everyone; in fact, it is a necessary prerequisite for our country to move out of the doldrums of an economic Depression and that is sound money. As a fan of Austrian Economics myself, we, as a party and individually, have not fought back hard enough in demanding that our government adhere to the Constitution and end this sham of a fiat/Federal Reserve inspired money system. Ron Paul, at least in Congress, has been the unsung hero of sound money since the late 1970s. Many considered him a quack who knew not about the complexities of the vast US economic system. In point of fact, it was the

Fair Access Constitutional Amendment

Fair Access Constitutional Amendment

Our Politicians Are Not Paying Attention

It is our responsibility to light a fire under the rear ends of our politicians and if we don’t step up to the plate now, we will live to regret our inaction. This is why we are proposing the Fair Access Amendment.

No politician who does not support it should get another vote. We ask for the support of our like minded friends who care about what is happening to our nation. If our politicians fail to support and pass the Fair Access Amendment then the people will have no choice but to secede one State at a time and form a nation of Free States.

Fair Access Constitutional Amendment

Section One: All members of the Senate shall serve from an office within the State they were elected to. The number of Senators will change from 2 per State to 9 per State as follows. There will be tree slates of three Senators. Each slate of Senators will serve for the Constitutionally authorized 6 years as they do now. Each slate shall be comprised of the 3 highest vote getters, regardless of political party affiliation or lack thereof. Each voter can choose their 3 favorite candidates so that voters can impact the Senate every two years.

There shall not be term limits as the voters have the right to decide who comes and who goes. It will be easy for voters to meet at the State level with their Senators. It will be difficult for Lobbyists to cover the 150 Senate Slates in all 50 States so the balance of influence will transfer from the lobbyists to the people.

Section Two: All members of the House of Representatives shall continue to serve the same two-year periods they now serve. However, they shall serve in slates of 3 and the number of slates shall be one slate per 300,000 in population or portion thereof. Example, if a States has 300,001 in population, then the State shall have 2 slates. Population shall be composed of lawful

Term Paper: Political Activism in Iraq

Term Paper: Political Activism in Iraq

However, Haifa Zangana, an Iraqi novelist, argues differently.  Her documentary City of Widows depicted how the position of Iraqi women has actually deteriorated after the invasion as opposed to before. She discusses the history of Iraq as a country riddled with war and political activism which has not really been allowed to grow on its own and build from within its own cultural and social identities. According to her, as a woman who was born in Iraq and has seen it all first hand, the invasion actually made matters worse with women going from one of the most liberated in the Middle East to those who find themselves losing their loved ones and going through life with children but no one to provide for them (Zangana). A feeling of helplessness enshrouds the women of Iraq as they battle through life within a semi-calm civil war like situation where their husbands may get kidnapped from their very homes with no trace whatsoever. It is estimated that 22,000 Iraqis have gone missing ever since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (Zangana). Such cases are usually ransom oriented and with ransoms ranging from a few thousand dollars to more than a million, the documentary dubs it as a lucrative business. Women have limited certainty of life and security with the police often unable to help or even register a case against the culprits responsible. Apart from the civilian suicide attacks and racial violence this is another matter plaguing the women of Iraq. If a kidnapping does occur or a family member goes missing, the women are forced to do their own search, travelling from police station to police station, looking up hospital registries and Missing Person centers. This scenario is very effective in stripping the women of their rights to enjoy life and live peacefully (Zangana).

What can thus be seen is a war situation similar to the Vietnam scene as the U.S seems to have stepped into a marsh where from it is not only finding it difficult to extract success out of but

Independent Contractor Lawsuit

Independent Contractor Lawsuit

“Bruce” was an independent landscaper who was often called upon by a larger landscaping contractor to help with big projects. The fact that he was an independent contractor is important because otherwise under New York Law an employee cannot sue his employer because of the workers’ compensation law.

On one job, the task was to remove a large maple tree on a homeowner’s property in Westchester. The team began by cutting off the top of the tree.

The remaining part of the tree was going to fall in an area that was zoned off, which was about 60 feet in radius so there would be plenty of room for the tree to land without incident. A rope was thrown around the branch and the workers pulled it tight toward the sectioned off “zoned” so that the tree would fall in the right direction.

As the tree began to fall, two of Bruce’s co-workers panicked and began running away leaving Bruce with a slackened rope as the tree began to fall “off course”. Bruce tried to get the tree under control by pulling on the rope himself but as you can guess, the tree won.

Then there was a domino effect: Bruce got out of the way of the Maple tree, but the Maple tree fell onto an Ash tree which then snapped and struck Bruce causing enormous injuries requiring multiple surgeries.

Bruce sued the landscaping company and recovered a substantial amount, given that the accident was a result of lack of control and safety procedures on the site by the company that hired Bruce. If the workers who gave up on Bruce were his co-workers, the best he could have hoped for was whatever he received from workers compensation, which only provides for reimbursement of wages and payment of medical expenses. There is no recovery for pain and suffering under New York workers’ compensation State.

The best way to find more information on cases related to recovery and compensation from personal injury, medical malpractices, construction accident injuries, premises and property cases, etc. is to visit a New York Trial Law firm at www.triallaw1.com

Donald Trump Polls May Underestimate His Support From College Educated Voters
In a study with about 2,500 Republican and Republican-leaning respondents that was released today, however, opinion polling and market research firm Morning Consult concluded that Republican and Independent voters may be reluctant or perhaps …
Read more on The Inquisitr

Republican Values

Republican Values

Since the Republican Party’s inception during the early 1850s, strong morals and values have been emphasized. Support for the abolishment of slavery fueled the origin of this new political club. Their platform was rather simple at the time stressing human rights, religion, and family values. As social culture changed and national policy became more complex, the party maintained their core political platform. However, an unraveling of such issues are now ever so apparent. It appears as though the party is close to experiencing a record decline in support from the American people. How long will the Republican Party survive with increasingly unbelievable views?

One of the issues they constantly support is biblically based morals and values. For example, homosexuality is a well covered topic within the GOP. According to the bible it is against God’s laws for a man to be with another man. Of course the interpretation has been of a sexual nature. For decades this has been one of the foremost party issues on the political agenda. The Republican Party constantly scrutinizes the homosexual community to a point of shameful slander. However, members inside the GOP claiming to represent these impeccable values continue to engage in hypocritical acts. Recent events have happened with members of the Republican Party that illustrate this fact. A clear example is Senator Larry Craig and his reported sex scandal. All the while he was said to be a devout Republican and has now participated in homosexual solicitation. Anyone can see an obvious pattern of hypocrisy inside the GOP.

Another topic popular to the Republican agenda is their infringing and dominating foreign policy. It is aggressive, intrusive, and thoroughly offensive to other nations. Also it serves as an utter embarrassment for our citizens and country. The present situation in Iraq has brought many countries to resent the United States. Our President’s approach was arrogant as well as insulting to

Our Bill of Rights

Our Bill of Rights

“Is a bill of rights essential to liberty?” asked founding father James Madison in the debate over ratifying the Constitution of the United States of America.   

The question arose as part of the on-going discussion of the nature of democracy, carried on in ancient Greece, continued through the centuries, and central to the foundation of our government. The absence of a bill of rights almost squelched the proposed Constitution, which was ratified in 1787.   

The question of rights persisted as the new system of government became operational, and within a few years the Bill of Rights became law via amendments to the Constitution. Whereas the Constitution reserves or delegates powers within government, these ten amendments limit the powers of government and define rights of people.  

The First Amendment says, “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.”   

By adoption in 1791, this and the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.   

Both national and state constitutions recognize the importance of freedoms and rights of individuals in a democratic republic. A federal system of government divides sovereignty between national and state, and aboriginal, governments; and, it limits, delegates, and disperses powers among branches as well as levels of government. But people, not government, provide the popular basis of political authority in a democracy.  

The First Amendment, for example, specifies some of the key freedoms that enable people to participate in a democracy – in a political system of, by, and for the people.  

The Amendment also covers many topics relevant to life today, including separation of church