“A Time for Choosing”

By guest author: Paul Hamby, Maysville Missouri                                                                       (Note: This message is not an ad for Ron Paul.)

Every once in a while, a leader comes along who stands out from the crowd. When he speaks, you feel like you did the day Reagan went to Germany and said; “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'” Reagan’s closest advisors told him not to give that speech. His speech writer begged Mr. Reagan to let her re-write it. ‘It was too strong and could cause unrest in the world’. Reagan did not choose a safe path, he was on a mission to change the world.

Reagan’s first national speech was in support of Barry Goldwater for President at the GOP convention in 1964 – which can be heard here: Reagan’s first national speech

A few months before, another American leader  known by the name of Martin Luther King, was on a different mission to change the world; “I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character…And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

Clearly Martin Luther King changed the world.

Most politicians intentionally choose a narrow safe path so they do not antagonize donors and voters. They have safe elections and will be footnotes to history at best. Occasionally one comes along who has a different agenda. it’s a simple difference but the outcome is a paradigm shift.

These rare individuals have one goal in common;
They are trying to change the course of history.

In 2007, a Republican Congressman from Texas ran for President. He lost the primary in 2008, but he started an amazing movement that grew well beyond him and sowed the seeds of today’s tea party movement. A few weeks ago he was asked why he continued to campaign so hard when all the media declares that he can’t win. He replied I’m Trying to Change the Course of History. You see winning is secondary. Fixing what is wrong with American economic & monetary policy is his first goal. All of the 2012 Republican Prez candidates platforms are based on issues that Ron Paul brought to the national stage in 2007 and 2008. Back then his ideas were scoffed at. Today they copy his talking points. Clearly he has changed history.

The 2012 elections present a rare opportunity for brave leaders to step up and change history. Choose your candidates carefully. Do you want a safe candidate? or one who will make history in Missouri? We all have a limited amount of time and money to invest in political campaigns. I challenge you to choose candidates who can change history.

An Idea Whose Time Has Come, Cannot Be Stopped By Any Army Or Any Government” – Ron Paul

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to “A Time for Choosing”

  1. spinoza1111 says:

    I have said that the Founders would have mandated health insurance if it had been as expensive yet as effective as it is today.

    Look at this link to Forbes, a conservative site” http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

    Yes: the John Adams administration REQUIRED seamen in the merchant marine (employed by private companies) to purchase health coverage.

    And as I have said, Washington wanted to fund a national university out of his own fortune but idiot proto-Reb rednecks stopped this. All of the Founders supported government construction of infrastructure including canals and later railways because as Adam Smith knew, infrastructure creates the preconditions for a flourishing market. Before the government funded the Erie canal linking lake Erie and the Hudson, Ohio wheat farmers drank their crops because the only way to preserve grain was to make bourbon. After the government funded the Erie canal the farmers fed New York in a free market.

    The insurance of private seamen encouraged argosies of discovery all over the world since shippers could be confident that they wouldn’t have to be out of pocket if a packet returned with a poxy crew.

    Pack it in, guys and join Occupy. You were misled by a well-funded scam.

    • Frank says:

      Interesting link – I enjoyed Mr. Ungar’s article, but found his some of his thoughts revealed in the comments section to be the real “meat-and-potatos” of his views. For instance, in one reply, he expresses “zero tolerance” for “nazi talk”, which was particularly interesting, if not a little ironic. Considering that any good dictator has zero tolerance for a behavior they don’t like, it’s curious to consider why the comparison of present-day National Socialism with that of Germany’s National Socialism (Nazism) from this commenter would be slapped with a zero tolerance policy. Obviously, I don’t think we can say that someone who is an advocate in today’s world for nationalized health-care, education, welfare, social security, etc as being the same as Germany’s Nationalized programs….but when Government takes it on itself to decide the fates of it’s citizenry through such programs – who’s to say?

  2. Craydo says:

    Your mandating of what is considered “soiling” of Dr. King’s memory is the same kind of attitude that fed intolerance then, and continues to this day. As for Ron Paul being a “lunatic fringe” – it makes for sensational word usage, but hardly a perspective based in fact. None of us can predict what the Presidential election will look like in 2012, but even if Mr. Paul isn’t a contender, the ideas he shares are quickly becoming so. Again, I’m amazed at your energy to continually beat the dogmatic drum of “the world according to Spinoza”. Rich man? Come on Spinoza. You’re likely living better than the majority of people in Missouri. Anyway, with whatever wealth you do have – don’t you enjoy having a say-so in what happens to it? You even make the comment that if you were, you’d do such-and-such. You really want more Government controls to forbid any choice in the matter? Anyway, you say Occupy is where it’s at? I say Nullification and Constitutional education is having a deeper, long-rang impact. Tin vs. Silver. They both have their uses, but only one is proving it’s value.

    • spinoza1111 says:

      I enjoy having a say-so in disposing of or saving my wealth but I do NOT insist on 100% control because all societies tax. When Rome stopped taxing it collapsed. And the Tea Party talks about “freedom” while enslaved in little lower-middle class jobs in which the Tea Baggers are in fact ordered about, not by government but by selfish, greedy and often completely incompetent little local entrepreneurs.

      Ron Paul is a lunatic. Just as the farmers needed credit in 1839 when Andrew Jackson destroyed their ultimate source of credit in the Bank of the United States, small businessmen today will find themselves starved of credit if Paul implements his delusional program. In ancient Rome and today, sovereignty means the ability to create money. This means that you need bankers who act in a combination of public spirit and private greed. Such bankers exist yet an out of control lower middle class refuses to believe this any more, having been cheated because of its own delusion.

  3. Frank says:

    But you didn’t answer the question. When a government takes it upon itself to decide the fate of their citizens through “special programs”, tell me what makes it right or wrong? God? Zeus? The Orange Blossom Special?

  4. spinoza1111 says:

    Justice as fairness makes it right or wrong. This is the notion of justice as seen in Plato but leavened by taking the needs of the least well off into more consideration that would Plato. And THIS in turn is the contribution of Christianity.

    There are in fact principles we can use. Separation of powers is one and it is why the Supreme Court reviews legislation (note that Gingrich in particular wants to disempower the Supreme Court). Another is the “difference principle” of John Rawls: inequality is allowed as an engine of growth but only up to the point where it no longer benefits the least well off members of society who themselves contribute to society (the working poor).

    I really worry about people who have no clear sense of this. It appears to me that your parents failed you. You’re reacting against a shadow Sixties interpreted as a time when people could do what they want while this is really only true of the very late sixties and the Seventies. Prior to that time we marched for an end to an unjust war and for justice as fairness to the poor.

    You appear to me to be desperately searching for a moral anchor but there is no such thing. We need no reason for being good as individuals or as a society.

  5. carknow32 says:

    Common Sense and Fairness as the building blocks of a civilization are fine, until people’s versions of what common sense and fairness are starts to conflict. People in jail usually don’t feel they’ve been treated fairly – and some even feel their actions were necessitated by common sense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s