Partial Transcript of Ron Paul's speech to the National Press Club on 5 Oct. 2011

Here are quotes, specifically as it relates to OWS with link and times on YouTube video of event.

"Basically, we as a people in our Universities have been taught Keynseian economics and that's planned economy. And the federal reserve has become the big central economic planner. But the results right now and the demonstrations on the streets, not only around the world but here in the United States demonstrates that there are a lot of people that are pretty upset and know there is something wrong and want something different. But the big goal is to define exactly how, and why we got into this mess and what we have to do to get out of it." See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6_26cTN6GI, starting at 4:15."

We are getting some information and the information isn't good. The Fed was involved with probably about $15T worth of transactions and a third of it was there to serve foreign banks. And when the American people hear this, no wonder they are up on Wall Street raising cain, because they know that the system is biased against the average person." See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6_26cTN6GI, starting at 7:30."

I can't speak for the people out there, because I do not know who they are and exactly what they are demonstrating against. I can argue the case for their right to express their outright frustration with what is going on. Some are liberals and some are conservatives, and some are libertarians and some are strict constitutionalists. And, if you read carefully, alot of what I've written on economic policy over the last 10-15 years, I talk alot about this, that eventually we will go bankrupt. Eventually we will undermine our productivity. We've had no new jobs in the past 10 years. And yet we've had a 30 million increase in our population. ... that eventually our jobs would go overseas, and the pie would shrink and there would be an agressive attitude to get the piece of the pie that's no longer there. And this is what we are seeing. So, you will have a mixture up there. But as far as the federal government involved in the practice of civil disobedience in the very states, its really up to the States to deal with it. I think civil disobedience, if everyone knows exactly what they are doing, is a legitimate effort. It has been done in this country for many grievances and some people end up going to jail for this. But, to speak for a special group and say "yeah, I like what they are doing or they are not doing" ... but what I want to do is try to sort it out and tell people why they are struggling and that this was a predictable event and the solution is really, getting a healthy economy back. And you can't get a healthy economy until you deal with the many things I've just got done saying." See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6_26cTN6GI, starting at 30:10.

To Form a More Perfect Union

In an attempt to describe my understanding of the structure of our government, and its importance, I wrote a paper entitled "To Form a More Perfect Union".

It is important that we differentiate between not only Democracy and Republic, but also between these and a Compound Republic.

Feel free to read the paper (as much as you would like). It has many citations which will provide interesting reading for anyone who pursues them. Most are available for free online.

Anyway, here is the link.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B-3Kldx302YqZmJjODM4NjItZmU2NC00MTNhLWIzMTYtMTgyZDU0OWVmNGM1&hl=en_US

--A Son of Thor

Integrity Answers For Itself

The recent calls for liberty from government and corporate oppression have led me to question the balance struck between security and liberty and the eventual outcome of too much liberty. While it is argued that liberty should not be exchanged for increased security, this balancing act is based on a false dichotomy. Let me explain ...

There is one attribute of all TRULY great nations that answers the relevant questions between security and liberty. That attribute is integrity, or honesty to one's self. Integrity naturally leads, also, to outward honesty. Too much liberty granted in a vacuum of integrity leads to the terrible extremes of anarchy. Too little liberty granted in the same vacuum leads to similar extremes of dictatorship. This is because security comes, not from the lack of liberty, but from the bounties of integrity found within a people.

Where integrity reigns, people govern themselves. Then, recognizing the baser instincts of the human nature, set up government to discourage such base instincts with penalties and methods of remuneration to those who those base instincts have harmed. This type of government is naturally a system of justice, based on the rule of law, because nothing else could honestly be said to be equally applicable to all. Justice, and the rule of law follow to the extent that the people have integrity. The law naturally arises form the integrity of the people, from the more godlike instincts of their human nature.

Of necessity, governments must have governors. Integrity among the governors is essential to the security and liberty of the governed. A lack of integrity among the governors tramples on both the security and liberty of the people. Thus, the governed must have the choice in their governors and must chose, with integrity, those governors who have integrity.

This idea leads naturally to a discussion of compromise in politics. Once again, we are faced with a false dichotomy between principles and compromise. Principles and compromise are not opposites. A lack of integrity is what destroys principles. A lack of integrity also destroys compromise. But where integrity reigns, true Principled Compromise flourishes.

Good people, considering the same questions with complete integrity, can differ as to the best answers to those questions. But that same integrity informs them of their fallibility, allowing them to recognize that they could be wrong. Thus, knowing their fallibility they listen carefully to those who differ with them, so that they might understand the truth, even if it differs with the answer they originally recommended. When such people of integrity consider issues they grow more unanimous over time, each giving a little as the truth is made more clear. Eventually, they reach principled compromise.

Is it ever appropriate to vote for "the lesser of two evils"? Will the vote not then always be cast for an evil? I personally have decided that I will never again vote for "the lesser of two evils". But how can this decision be made? The key is to be careful what is called evil. Is not a potential governor that has integrity but differs in opinion with many of the governed infinitely better than a potential governor who says they agree with the governed but don't have integrity? Can the governed ever be sure of what they are getting in the latter case? Can not the governor be persuaded and effect great good in the former case? Thus, the true evil in decisions of voting is from a lack of integrity.

Benjamin Franklin, on the concluded day of the Convention, explained it this way:

"I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. ..."

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

"I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats."

"Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die."

A Compound Constitutional Republic

I have spent the last 4 months in an intensive study of the Constitution. I have read Locke and Montesquie, Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention, the various Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers, and many, many other sources. I wanted to summarize very briefly what I learned about our Republic here.

First, in small republics (as the U.S. Founders knew them) governmental power is divided into multiple branches. This division prevents the cummulation of power in a single individual or group of individuals, and pits the selfish (localized) interests of each branch against those of the others. In order for any progress to be made, the branches have to set aside selfish interests. This allows for increased virtue in decisions.

Second, only small republics have traditionally survived. Large republics are hard to hold together do to factions that arise. The inability to respond with energy sufficient to put down such factions fully is the flaw, which can only be corrected directly underdictatorship.

Third, however, is a compound republic, one in which governmental powers are divided strictly between two levels of government: the federal and the state. In this way, appropriate energy can be given to each government for its respective purposes, and then divided among such governments as do republics in general. The benefit of a compound republic is that its focus is strong toward internal and external defense and thus it can be granted power sufficient to that purpose. However, the police power necessary for dictatorship is confined to the governments of the states, and not the federal government. Thus, once again, power is divided in such a way that selfish interests are pitted against each other, and thus become unavailable. The states push back if the federal government seeks to usurp authority over them, and the federal government does the same when the States disregard its authority.

The federal government must ensure that the State governments remain republics such that the State police power does not become despotic.

Anyway, This is just a few ideas.

9/11 Truth, Post 1

I have independent knowledge on some truths about 9/11 and the collapse of the WTCs.

I was not there, nor did anyone close to me die. I cried with the rest of the country as I watch on live television as the buildings collapsed. I stood with Congress and the President when they said we had a responsibility to find the perpetrators and to stop them from ever doing such again. I truly believed that all of it was legitimate. And then I learned otherwise.

I heard from some family members that there were those studying the collapse that questioned the "orthodox" explanation. I listened and read into it, but couldn't (or rather wouldn't) believe that anyone in our government would be able to pull such a horrible atrocity off and not be publicly destroyed and shot for treason. I ignored these issues for a year or two until I ran into similar information again. This time, the individual explaining the inconsistencies was a physicist and his expressed logic was not flawed, at least as far as I could tell. But I couldn't just accept what he said on face value. I have known too many "scientists" including physicists who willingly distort facts to make their logic work.

So, I personally and very carefully analyzed video of the collapse of one of the towers using my own software on my own computer in my own home, with video I got from other sources. What I found shocked me, and confirmed what I had heard. I found that these buildings did not fall from structural damage at the top, but rather complete collapse along the entire height. Further, the buildings fell at free fall rates, which is simply not possible physically unless the floors below the higher floors were not in the way to slow them down.

The 911 Commission claimed that it had collapsed floor by floor and then reported times that did not match the video. When called on these falsehoods, it was clarified that the times were from there simulations. SIMULATIONS?! You have the video in front of you ... get the right time and put that into your simulations. Don't give results until they match the facts, for starters.

I want to be clear. This is my own personal observation. I am in no way affiliated with any "truther" groups, and have no personal agenda but the truth. I hope this is helpful to others.

Background

I am a physicist and have been for over a decade, and completed all but writing my PhD dissertation. In early 2009, I gave up my career in physics to study our federal and state laws and devote my time to defending the Constitution. I am still passionate about physics, but I am even more passionate about my freedoms and the freedoms of my wife, children, and others.

Yes, I am married and I have children, and this last year has been quite a challenge. And no, I am not wealthy ... actually quite the opposite. My wife is a wonderful, heaven-sent support. Prior to making any decisions about this career change my wife and I discussed and prayed about our options and were both given clear direction that this change was right. The experience was been very worth it, and I expect it will continue to be so.