[amazonify]0446537519:right[/amazonify]Ron Paul, the guy I’m going to write in for President later this year, has a new book out.

Here’s an excerpt from his mailing list announcement which I received today.

These principles - individual liberty, sound money, the Constitution, and the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers - have had no home in American politics for a very long time. With The Revolution: A Manifesto, I’m letting the establishment know we’re not going away.

Finally, Americans can hear and judge these great American principles for themselves, instead of through an unfriendly media filter. And they can learn once and for all that they need not be satisfied with the phony choices the system offers them every four years. Another way really is possible.

The media vilified Ron’s candidacy. At times, he was polling around 10-15% in places, but never higher. Maybe that’s because from the very beginning people like Sean Hannity were labeling him a nut job with no chance in hell of being elected. Then someone or some group planted the whole “Ron Paul is a racist” red herring. People called those who believe in Ron’s message of liberty and individual responsibility as well as small government at the federal level “Paultards” and other nasty little monikers.

I don’t think people who like Ron Paul and think he’d make a good President claim the guy is perfect. We just think he is way better than Hillary “Communist Powermonger” Clinton or Barack “Empty Promises and Pipe Dreams” Obama or John “American Values by Force are our Primary Export” McCain. Ron Paul doesn’t promise to fix all our problems by stealing money from some of us and giving it to others.

The anti-Ron Paul people are short-sighted and are doing a great disservice to America by trying to silence one of the few prudent politicians serving at the federal level. In that great, shrill, gasping mass of irresponsible children we call Congress but should call criminals, Ron Paul is one of the few who actually practice the principles he preaches. Unlike John McCain, Ron Paul doesn’t say things he doesn’t really believe in hopes of getting elected. McCain pretends to be principled. Ron Paul IS principled. I cannot understand how this is not self-evident to people. Maybe they just don’t care. Maybe they just want the politician who promises them the most free stuff.

If you are interested in liberty, fiscal responsibility and a government that actually adheres to the limits placed on it by the Constitution, then you should probably pick up a copy of Revolution, A Manifesto.

I’ve written about this issue before. If your primary self-defense plan is to call 911 when things go bad you may well be an idiot. Police spend most of their time cleaning up and investigating crimes that HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED. They spend very little time actually intercepting and stopping crimes in progress.

I know, I know, you don’t believe me. You like your false sense of security. It’s easier to just rely on others for your welfare. Read this.

Testimony in the seven-day trial showed that Kirk was beaten, kicked and slapped over a 30-minute period by her former boyfriend, Marvin T. Moss, who could be heard on the 911 tape threatening to rape her before he ripped two telephones from the walls of Kirk’s Westport Road apartment.

During the last call to 911, Kirk told former county dispatcher Marino Susi that she had been “whooped” by Moss and needed a cruiser. A tape of the call has Kirk yelling at Moss not to rip out her phone. The line went dead, and Susi didn’t try to call back.

Susi didn’t try to call back but it wouldn’t have mattered because by then this lady was dead. She’s still dead as I write these words. Whether or not the jury found the local government security services liable is irrelevant to this dead lady. If she had been a little smarter and a little more prepared to defend herself instead of relying on others for her basic security maybe things could have turned out different.

I use 911. The other day there were two cows and a calf in the middle of the road and I called the police. Might as well get something back since I’m forced to pay for the system.

The verdict finding government responsible for the death of this poor lady will be overturned on appeal. When the fit hits than shan only you are going to save your own life consistently. Sure, strangers may jump in and help from time to time, but don’t count on it.

Want to know what Congress is planning to do with the money they want to steal from you in 2009?

Defense: $515 billion ($294)
Homeland Security: $38 billion ($0; was in Domestic Necessary)
Domestic Necessary: $713 billion
Domestic Worthy Causes*: $305 billion ($217)
Social Security: $644 billion ($409)
Medicare: $408 billion ($197)
Medicaid and SCHIP: $224 billion ($136)
Interest: $260 billion ($223)
Total: $3107 ($1789)

Numbers in parentheses are how much was spent in fiscal year 2000. Source article here.

Here is the projected income:

Personal income taxes: $1259 billion ($1004.5)
Corporate income taxes: $339 billion ($207.3)
Social Insurance receipts: $949 billion ($652.9)
Other taxes: $153 billion ($161)
Deficit: $400 billion (surplus $236 billion)

I disagree with the authors’ conclusions - let’s completely eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as a start - it cannot be done in one year, but it can be done. That would balance out the budget by eliminating almost a trillion dollars in theft. Social Security is an illegal Ponzi scheme, whether anyone will admit it or not. People too stupid to live healthy lifestyles and put money aside for the time when their health inevitably starts to fail deserve to suffer the consequences (I include myself in this group; I am a former smoker).

Once we get the trillion dollars of “I’m too stupid to take care of myself” money out of the budget, we can tackle the $305 billion in “domestic worthy causes” - honest people call that money pork. The proposed budget is criminal!

Not that I eat their unhealthy food anyway but I will no longer dine at Pizza Hut even occasionally. If you fire someone for defending himself you deserve to lose your business. The right to defend one’s own existence trumps every other thing.

A pizza delivery driver, who police said defended himself by shooting a robber who attacked him, was fired from his job on Friday.

Gun bans do not work. Telling law abiding citizens they cannot defend themselves is idiotic, and I reserve the right to ignore such rules. I have in the past at my own discretion and will again in the future. My life is more important than some idiot’s rules. I will not allow faceless strangers in some headquarters to determine my fate.

It is completely moral to take the life of another in defense of your own when the other initiates violent aggression. Telling someone they are not allowed to act when someone is threatening them is unconscionable.

When you read articles that discuss government, taxation and the economy, it is important to take note of the tone of those articles. For instance, read a New York Times article called Weighing a McCain Economist by someone I don’t know named David Leonhardt.

Last week, Senator McCain laid out his economic vision in a speech in Pittsburgh. He talked about wasteful spending, but the newest, most detailed part of the speech dealt with a package of tax cuts that would cost about $300 billion a year. They would come on top of $350 billion a year in Bush tax cuts that Mr. McCain wants to make permanent. To put these numbers in perspective, the Iraq war has been costing roughly $200 billion a year.

When Leonhardt says “package of tax cuts that would cost about $300 billion a year” he is really saying that all that money belongs not to the individuals it will be taken from in the form of taxes but rather to the collective of bureaucrats and agents will will redistribute it according to their own particular agendas. Government does not bear the cost of policy changes. The taxpayer does. This fact is purposefully ignored.

What the budget office found, as study after study has shown, was that any new revenue that tax cuts brought in paled in comparison with their cost. This is why the deficit jumped under the last two tax-cutting presidents (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush) and fell under the last two tax-raising presidents (George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton).

In the above sentences Leonhardt makes a contentious assertion without providing a single shred of evidence. He expects his readers to simply assume that what he states is fact - everyone should inherently understand that new revenues brought by tax cuts pale in comparison with the cost of those tax cuts! Silly peasants.

At least on one point, the concluding sentence, Leonhardt and I tenatively agree:

Instead, when you add up the numbers that have been released so far, you’re left wondering if he (McCain) is the least fiscally conservative candidate still in the race.

While I wonder who the least fiscally conservative candidate might be, I know for certain that not one of the three is a true fiscal conservative. All of them want too much of my money. All of them want to take economic blood from my veins and use it for the promotion of policies with which I strongly disagree. The growth of the federal government must stop if the United States is to remain a healthy nation.

John McCain can’t or won’t reduce the size of the federal government no matter how much lip service he gives the idea of doing so - he’ll be similar to George W. when it comes to spending reductions - there won’t be any. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a communist and will remain one as long as she has the hope of being the head communist and setting standards for all of us that she isn’t subject too. Barack Obama is a socialist full of grand visions that, under analysis, are nothing more than empty promises and pipe dreams.

In the end all three of these individuals firmly believe that it is just fine to take my money and to use it however they see fit. That is a basic issue for every net producer in this nation, and should be a call to political action. Write in a candidate! I know I plan on doing so.