One great thing about the Internet is that the past is so easily accessible. I rediscovered the following CNN news article from 2004 today, and there’s nothing like a few years to put things into perspective:

Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S.

Al-Jazeera releases full transcript of al Qaeda leader’s tape

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 Posted: 0107 GMT (0907 HKT)

(CNN) — The Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head of al Qaeda said his group’s goal is to force America into bankruptcy.

Al-Jazeera aired portions of the videotape Friday but released the full transcript of the entire tape on its Web site Monday.

“We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” bin Laden said in the transcript.

He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, “using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers.”

“We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat,” bin Laden said.

He also said al Qaeda has found it “easy for us to provoke and bait this administration.”

“All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations,” bin Laden said.

Al-Jazeera executives said they decided to post the entire speech because rumors were circulating that the network omitted parts that “had direct threats toward specific states, which was totally untrue.”

“We chose the most newsworthy parts of the address and aired them. The rest was used in lower thirds in graphics format,” said one official.

U.S. intelligence officials Monday confirmed that the transcript made public Monday by Al-Jazeera was a complete one.

As part of the “bleed-until-bankruptcy plan,” bin Laden cited a British estimate that it cost al Qaeda about $500,000 to carry out the attacks of September 11, 2001, an amount that he said paled in comparison with the costs incurred by the United States.

Read the rest of the article here.

Perhaps Sun Tzu said it best:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

National security is critically important. There is more to national security than just foreign occupation, however. A strong economy, and strong manufacturing base, are both critical to national security. It’s time to reassess what is required to keep America secure, strong, and free.

I just read a fascinating book, High Cost of Living by Thomas Cushing Daniel, published in 1912 and now digitized thanks to Google Books. It is a fantastic “living documentary” of the history of our monetary and banking system. I especially recommend these quotes from the chapter “Responsibility Rests with the People”, on pages 157-158 of the electronic document or pages 150-151 of the book:

I urge all voters to apply this crucial test to their representatives before supporting them.

Make them commit squarely and unequivocally to these questions. Do you believe Congress should exercise its sovereign power as provided in the Constitution of the United States to create money and regulate the value thereof and control the circulating medium in the interest of the whole people? Or do you believe this sovereign power should be transferred to Banks of Issue?

Their answers will prove conclusively whether they are with the people or against them.

Or do you believe that Banking Corporations should issue a credit substitute and through it control the money and circulating medium of exchange of the people of the United States in their own interest?

Watch your presidential candidate carefully and see that he commits himself clearly on this vital question. It will be a true test of his honesty and fitness for office. Admitted ignorance on the monetary issue should not excuse him. The subject is as old as our government, and if he does not know enough about it now to answer these test questions, he is not qualified to fill the position he aspires to, and should not ask your votes.

If he is unwilling to commit himself before election, he would be able, after becoming President of the United States, to fall in line with the great banking and corporate influences that have controlled the finances and business of the country up to the present time, and enable them to act into law the Morgan-Rothschild-Aldrich Bankers Bill now pending in Congress; or a bill based upon the same principles, which would make permanent the absolute control of all the business of the people of this country by a gigantic money trust.

This story did not end well for the Republicans. Going into the 1912 election, the Republican incumbent president William Howard Taft split the party into conservative and progressive branches. This philosophical divide was cemented by former president Theodore Roosevelt’s forming a separate Progressive party after he challenged Taft for the nomination in 1912. Sure enough, Taft and Roosevelt split the Republican vote, and Wilson was elected.

President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Along with the Federal Reserve, we also receive the sixteenth amendment, Internal Revenue Service, and the income tax. Since the Federal Reserve was created, our dollar has lost 97% of its purchasing power, and we send an unprecedented amount of money to foreign central banks as interest payments on a $9.2 trillion national debt.

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson said it best, one hundred years previously:

If the debt which the banking companies owe be a blessing to anybody, it is to themselves alone, who are realizing a solid interest of eight or ten per cent on it. As to the public, these companies have banished all our gold and silver medium, which, before their institution, we had without interest, which never could have perished in our hands, and would have been our salvation now in the hour of war; instead of which they have given us two hundred million of froth and bubble, on which we are to pay them heavy interest, until it shall vanish into air… We are warranted, then, in affirming that this parody on the principle of ‘a public debt being a public blessing,’ and its mutation into the blessing of private instead of public debts, is as ridiculous as the original principle itself. In both cases, the truth is, that capital may be produced by industry, and accumulated by economy; but jugglers only will propose to create it by legerdemain tricks with paper. [emphasis mine]

Letter to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:423

I always use labels with caution, as one label may mean one thing to one person but something completely different to another person.

Last week I thought a lot about labels after a certain e-mail went out that recklessly used the term “true Republican.”

What is a “true Republican”? If only we could ask Senator Robert Taft.

Robert Taft was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1939 to 1953. He was the leading opponent of the New Deal in the Senate and led The Conservative Coalition in opposing it. He was also a leader of the Old Right-wing of the Republican Party. The Old Right were staunch non-interventionists.

His nickname? “Mr. Republican”.

But when you consider Taft’s non-interventionist views, is it possible that if “Mr. Republican” were alive today he’d be accused of not being a “true Republican”? There’s no doubt in my mind.

Imagine that: someone sending out an e-mail attacking Robert Taft, one of the most prominent figures in Republican Party history, for not being a “true Republican”. So here’s the question: who’s really the “true Republican” and who’s not? Who’s out of step with the Republican Party and who’s not?

I’ll leave those questions for the reader to answer, but it should be noted that non-interventionism within the Republican Party did not die with Robert Taft. In fact, the Republican Party has traditionally been the non-interventionist party. This was the case throughout the 20th Century.

It was Eisenhower who ran on ending the Korean War and did so when he became President. It was Nixon who was elected to end the Vietnam War.

In the ’90s it was Republicans who condemned U.S. intervention into Somalia and Clinton’s interventions and nation-building around the world, especially in Kosovo.

Even as recent as in the year 2000 non-interventionism was a key part of the Republican platform when then-Governor Bush ran on a platform of non-interventionism and no nation-building, and attacked Al Gore for the interventionism and nation-building of the Clinton Administration.

Here’s what he had to say on the subject in the second Presidential debate of the 2000 election that took place between him and Al Gore on October 11th, 2000:

MODERATOR: The use of the military, there — some people are now suggesting that if you don’t want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen?

BUSH: I don’t think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops.
…

I’m going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.

Even John McCain, who recently said we might be in Iraq for “maybe 100 [years],” had this to say about U.S. intervention in Somalia in 1993:

There’s no reason for the United States to remain [in Somalia]. The American people want them home. I believe the majority of Congress wants them home. Our continued military presence allows another situation to rise, which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that. What should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal. And if we do not do that and other Americans die then I say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution. For us to get into nation-building, law and order, etc., I think, is a tragic and terrible mistake.

In the end, there is no denying that non-interventionist views have long been part of the Republican Party platform. They are deeply rooted within the Republican Party. They were the views of Robert Taft and they are the views of B.J. Lawson.

There’s also no denying that interventionist views have long been part of the Democratic Party platform. It started with Woodrow Wilson, who proclaimed that we should make “the world safe for democracy,” and continues to this day.

One must conclude that any Republican who promotes an interventionist foreign policy has accepted the Democratic party’s historic foreign policy, and has more in common with Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, than Robert Taft, “Mr. Republican.”

So who’s the “true Republican”?

As Americans gleefully await the coming stimulus package, and the opportunity to spend their $300-$1,200 check, it’s a great time to contemplate the challenges facing our economy.

This article by Gerald Jackson does an excellent job at debunking some myths surrounding the way we measure the economy, and economic growth. Have you ever wondered how we can survive with a “Gross Domestic Product” that’s comprised of 70% consumer spending? Clearly, if the vast majority of our GDP is consumer spending, growing the GDP means increasing consumer spending.

So where are consumers getting money to spend? From their savings accounts? Unfortunately, consumers don’t save in a traditional sense. Our household savings rate is actually negative, as it doesn’t make sense to save in a bank savings account when inflation eats your purchasing power faster than the meager interest paid for cash deposits. Even a 5% high-yield account doesn’t help when your grocery bill is going up at 10% per year. So we “save” by investing in volatile markets to chase higher returns.

From their salaries? Sure, salaries are important, but if we’re limited to spending our salary increases, then we can’t grow our GDP any faster than salaries go up. There are a lot of folks facing stagnant wages today, and the last thing the Federal Reserve wants is widespread wage inflation. Corporations that manage their wage increases across a large number of workers set a target for their overall payroll growth. One such company is setting a target of 3.5% this year — which unfortunately is below the current 4% rate of “official” inflation. Bummer.

By using their home equity as an ATM for cash withdrawals? Yes, that “worked” until housing prices started to decline. Now consumers are stuck with a house that’s worth less than they expected, with a mortgage that’s bigger than they expected. Rising foreclosures are the inevitable result.

So how is this “stimulus” package going to work? Honestly, it’s not going to work. Giving out $150 billion in checks to goose spending is dropping a pebble into a pond. There will be a ripple, but it doesn’t fix the fact that the American consumer is simply tapped out, and that our economy is dependent on a constantly-growing supply of borrowed money.

Jackson’s article sums it up nicely:

Relying on consumption spending to raise living standards is like arguing that the only way to avoid a famine is to eat more. We all know that famines are avoided by producing more food, not consuming it. Investing in factories, for example, is basically the same thing. It’s not the consumption of cars, refrigerators, computers, etc., that raises living standards but the means to produce them.

…
A final note: consumption doesn’t drive an economy, entrepreneurship does that while savings fuel it.

I can’t help but think of the scene in the movie Gladiator, where the government is tossing loaves of bread to the teeming masses in the Roman Coliseum. Once the bread is gone, then what? Oh, and at least the Romans baked their own bread. Where is that $150 billion coming from, anyway? Right — we’re borrowing it.

It’s time to start creating again, instead of just consuming.

Most Americans make New Years resolutions, and most break them. I never have for that reason. I’ve always felt that if I made one I’d just turn around and break it. However, this New Years I did make a resolution for the first time ever and that resolution was to do something that would make a difference for my country.

On January 2nd, 2008, I met BJ Lawson.

I arrived at BJ’s house at around 8 o’clock. I had never met BJ in person before, much less been to his home, but I knew exactly which house was his from the cars already gathered in the driveway.

A few days earlier I had e-mailed BJ after finding out he was running with a simple message: “if there’s anything I can do to help let me know.” He had promptly e-mailed me back with an invite to come to his house to meet with him and others tonight. I pulled into his driveway and walked towards the door.

I rang the door bell and BJ answered. I shook his hand and introduced myself and he invited me inside, immediately offering me something to drink. I took him up on his offer and poured myself a cup of coffee before walking around the living room to introduce myself to everyone, with BJ’s assistance.

Three things I realized within five minutes of being there:

1. I’d never felt more welcome in someone’s home in my entire life.

2. There was no television downstairs. Lots of books, and a couple Macintosh computers, but no television.

3. All of these people were patriots.

In a day and age when apathy runs rampant, being in a room with so many freedom-loving people who so deeply care about their country and are willing to fight for it filled me with so much hope.

In some cases they were literally willing to fight for it such as in the case of Victor, an Iraq war veteran. In other cases they were people who had been fighting for decades for their country by being politically and socially active such as Howard, who among other things was a big Goldwater supporter in the ’60s.

There were people from BJ’s company, MercuryMD, who helped him create jobs for Americans. There was Chinnapan, a talented graphic designer and Indian-American who spoke of his travels to India and how America is viewed by the rest of the world. He explained how in India the U.S. dollar has always been so highly regarded and how fast that’s changing due to how weak our dollar is getting as a consequence of our flawed monetary policy.

But, more than anyone else the person I was most impressed by was BJ. I remember thinking “here’s the kind of person I need to strive to be.” At just 33 years of age BJ has already accomplished a lot. He has a fantastic family, and if you’ve ever doubted the old saying that “behind every great man, there is a great woman” you need to meet BJ’s wife JoLynn. He has a beautiful home, is a Duke alumnus, has a background in engineering and medicine and has been an entrepreneur having started his own company.

He’s also just an all around great person. Friendly, warm, charismatic, smart and patriotic. He truly loves his country and he’s willing to fight for it.

BJ Lawson is not a politician and that’s a good thing. He’s a real person with real concerns about our country. He’s a statesman and a real Republican. That’s exactly the kind of person we need representing North Carolina’s Fourth District.

It can happen, too, because he can beat David Price… and with everyone giving their all for liberty he will. When I walked into his home I walked in with the highest hopes but still with the thought burning in the back of my mind “I don’t know if he can beat David Price.” When I walked out all I could think was “He’s going to do this. He’s going to beat David Price.”

As I stepped out the door into the cold that night and walked to my car, after saying my “goodbyes” to BJ and all of the other patriots I had met that night, I was filled with a warmth inside (which is also my excuse for forgetting my coat). I held my head high and walked to my car with a smile on my face and a new found optimism. Filled with hope for my country I was already so proud to be part of this and so ready to start the fight for change the next day.

When I got home, after what may have been the best drive home I’ve taken in my life, I slipped into bed. My last thought before I fell asleep, thinking about my New Years resolution, was “this year we make a difference. It starts tomorrow and it’ll only be the beginning.”

That night I slept better than I had in months.

I had an excellent morning attending the 27th Annual Martin Luther King Triangle Interfaith Prayer Breakfast. The highlight of the morning was an impassioned address by Rev. Dr. Charles E. Booth, Pastor of Mount Olivet Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio. Rev. Booth made it clear from the beginning of his speech (or should I say sermon?) that being asked to speak at such a noble, annual occasion is both a “blessing and a curse”.

On the blessing side, it is right to recognize and celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The curse, however, is that “every 365 days we pull Dr. King out of mothballs”, yet after the breakfast, after the “celebration”, little is done, and we return to business as usual. And so it goes — a widening gap between rich and poor, with the scourge of rising prices and stagnant wages testing the budgets of families everywhere. Lives lost to substance abuse, educational failure, and senseless violence. Instead of celebrating peace and prosperity, we read of gangbangers, drug pushers, and dropouts.

Indeed, page five of the program has a long list of seventy people (by my count) who were killed in our area in 2007. Is this national security? Is this economic growth? Is this the oasis of freedom and justice for which Dr. King opined on August 28, 1963? Is this Dr. King’s dream? No, Dr. Booth challenged us, this is Dr. King’s nightmare.

How do we change our direction? At what point will the next generation, the “GenX”-ers, or “Millenials”, step up and say enough is enough? How can we avoid being “caught up in affluence” that dulls the senses, and eviscerates the sense of justice in a country that is being increasingly torn apart right in front of us?

Dr. Booth finished by making two complementary, but critical, points. First is that Dr. King was never “politically correct”. When he began advocating for social change, few of his contemporaries were behind him or his message, and many in fact were actually against him. Today, as Dr. Booth said, “most of us would rather be politically correct and accepted, than politically incorrect, right, and honored by God himself.”

Second, one must ask the question — from where did Dr. King get the strength to swim against the tide? He clearly wasn’t a politician. Politicians tend to follow the “wisdom of crowds” (or lack thereof), and tie their opinions to the polls. Dr. King was first and foremost a preacher. He was raised by a preacher, mentored by preachers, taught by preachers, and became a preacher himself. As a man of God, his strength and focus came from God being part of his daily experience.

It’s never been clearer to me that our country is at a crossroads. Many of the issues we desperately need to discuss are divisive, and painful. Dr. Booth’s message of self-empowerment and Divine Inspiration was clear: where are the preachers today? Where are the people today? Where are the politicians today? Why are we not awake to explore and address the challenges that need our attention?

Let us not go another year without writing something above the hyphen that will separate the year we were born from the year we died.

Our legislators in Washington spend a lot of time and taxpayer money talking about the great things our federal government does for us. This recent release from Rep. David Price’s Web site illustrates how he was able to bring $14.5 million “back” to our District to fund a variety of projects, for a variety of purposes.

Some of these projects are appropriately the role of government. The problem is that none of these projects are the role of the federal government. Why must we always go begging in Washington to get some of our money back for projects that should be funded by our state and local governments?

Can we survive without begging a bankrupt federal government for help? Can the people of North Carolina, and the 4th District, really take care of themselves, and each other, while making our community a better place?

The more people I meet in my congressional campaign, the more convinced I am that we are capable of making the world, and our community, a much better place. I’ve written previously about the fantastic work being done at Durham Nativity School. More recently, I’ve had the pleasure of spending time with Graig Meyer, a local educational activist in Chapel Hill who founded and runs the Blue Ribbon Mentor Advocate Program.

BRMA demonstrates the best aspects of public/private partnership, and today is successfully bringing out the best in our next generation. Graig started BRMA in 1995, and it is specifically focused on closing the “achievement gap” for disadvantaged students in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro school system.

It operates on a “strength based” framework, where the mentor recognizes that while challenges exist in the student’s life and environment, the best foundation for improvement is identifying and cultivating areas where the student has strengths and natural abilities. In other words, “What’s the hook?” that allows that student to grab on, discover him or herself, and start exploring the world from a true position of strength.

Another key attribute of BRMA is that they identify students who seek out adult attention, and family situations where the parent is eager to participate in the process. In that fertile environment, a mentor can gradually change the sense of what’s possible and literally give a child an entirely new life.

The duration of the mentoring relationship is the single most important predictor of success. Recognizing that fact, BRMA mentors commit for at least two years, for two hours per week. Also, BRMA provides twelve hours of training to ensure mentors are ready to benefit themselves, and the student, as much as possible in a truly mutual-growth process.

So how well does it work? Well, the numbers are startling: 100% of BRMA’s students have graduated and gone on to post-secondary education. Sixty percent of BRMA students have the same mentor from fourth grade (when the program begins) until high school graduation. That’s a great example of a program that just flat-out works.

So how much federal money is required for BRMA? None. It receives no federal funding or grants. Two-thirds of its operating expenses are paid for by the school district, and private funds are raised every year for a variety of summer and after-school events, as well as college scholarships. Right now, 91 students in grades 4-12 enjoy a mentoring relationship, and 80 high school students are participating in a separate Youth Leadership Institute organized by BRMA.

Graig Meyer is a fantastic example of a committed individual whose focused and disciplined leadership has organized other committed individuals to help provide new opportunities for an entire population of children. BRMA’s success is rewarded by a vibrant and growing program, and in the tradition of “social entrepreneurship”, we need to celebrate and recognize this success so it continues to grow.

Right now, BRMA is recruiting mentors for the upcoming year, and hopes to identify another 20 volunteers this spring. If you are a graduate student, young professional, empty-nester, or retiree in Orange County who wants to help a child build a foundation for the future, please visit the BRMA Web site to sign up and learn more.

We all face challenges, and problems, in life. Many of today’s children face tremendous problems that need focused, caring attention. I think Graig put it best when he said, “We want to give children the strengths and the skills to walk away from their problems.”

It appears that my candidacy has ruffled some feathers within the local Republican party. I find that a shame, as I have been a registered Republican since I was 18 and consider myself a thoughtful and committed American who honestly wants what’s best for our country, my family, and my children.

I considered party affiliation carefully before deciding to run for office. While I don’t agree with 100% of the North Carolina GOP Platform, I agree with 90% of it. In my opinion, one of the most important lines in the GOP Platform is from the preamble:

4. We honor the original meaning of our Constitutions and the inalienable [sic] rights of the American people as recognized in the Bill of Rights and the North Carolina Declaration of Rights.

This statement is reiterated in Article III, Individual Liberty:

1. We embrace the vision for America established by our nation’s founders — the authors of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the North Carolina Declaration of Rights.

The word “Constitution” appears numerous time within the GOP Platform, and reinforces my desire to go to Congress as a Republican committed to restoring a Constitutional federal government.

Unfortunately, politics being what it is, there are those who would prefer to distort my beliefs instead of engaging in an honest debate about these critical topics. The message below was sent to a list of Republican party activists, and forwarded to me by a friend and supporter. I’ve copied the full text below for convenience, but wanted to respond to specific “allegations”:

BJ is a Libertarian.

I am not, and have never been, a Libertarian. I have been a registered Republican since I was 18 years old. I disagree with the Libertarian party’s positions on abortion and open borders.

He told that to Paul Stam himself.

I never told Mr. Stam that I was a Libertarian. While sitting down to visit Mr. Stam, he gave me the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz” that asked me to define the role of “government” (without specifying federal, state, or local) in specific economic and social situations. My answers were based upon my running for federal office, and upholding the U.S. Constitution. Because there is no Constitutional role for the federal government in the issues presented, I answered as such and thus scored as a “libertarian” (small l). However, some of the issues may be proper roles for state and local government, as determined by the people. It is essential that we as a nation recognize the difference between the roles of federal, state, and local governments. Mr. Stam is an attorney, Republican leader of the NC State House, and was Chair of the NCGOP’s platform committee, so I am sure he understands this critical issue.

He also told Bill Carraway he could not support the NCGOP Platform. He told Dan Cote the same thing.

I said no such thing. As I said above, I agree with 90% of the NCGOP Platform, to the extent that we follow it.

He told Martha Jenkins he didn’t know if he was in the right party and he might run as an independent.

My comments to Martha Jenkins were out of frustration with her taking me to lunch and telling me not to run for Congress. How can we have a representative form of government if the “party” decides which candidates should run for office? I am, and remain, a Republican. I have no intention of running as an Independent. Additionally, I find it interesting that my own District 4 chair is overt in her support of my primary opponent, even though the GOP’s rules would suggest that those in positions within the party should not show favoritism in party primaries.

Here is the full text of the email that was sent to local Republicans. I hope that each voter in the Fourth District will focus on the issues at stake in this election, and not make this a personal, negative campaign.

BJ

Please pass this information on to your contacts. We need to make sure that the candidate we support is a “true Republican” and will support the Republican Platform. From the information contained on this web site below, BJ Lawson is supporting the Libertarian platform– and Ron Paul. There is also evidence that the organization is trying to take over the Republican Party and use it to deliver the Libertarian candidates into office.

Here are some interesting threads of information from the website noted below::

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=86982

Please read this link, and if you have time, scan the whole thread. Certain sections have been highlighted below:

• “We need to get him (BJ) into congress so he can run for president in 2012.” page 2
• Besides, if we don’t have people like BJ in Congress how will RP get his domestic agenda through as President?” page 2
• “what is the feedback from Republicans in the area? are they receptive/supportive? is the message getting across?” page 3, followed by “Again, it’s early, but I’d say that it’s very receptive and the message is getting across…. Also, BJ has already made some great inroads with local movers and shakers and other people of importance.” page 3 (He’s talking about us!! Because Republican groups are inviting him to speak).
• From a Lisa James who says she’s in the 4th District: “True. I told my husband that barring a straight up voting scandal, Dr. Paul will take this state. But wouldn’t it be awesome that as he goes into the presidential office, that an army of Ron Paul like pro liberty candidates like BJ are elected into Congress.” page 6
• OH yeah! We gotta take this guy down!” (Referring to Augustus Cho) page 7
• “While you people are at it, become precinct leaders.” page 9

There are many more quotes here that show what Ron Paul and his supporters are all about. I’ll end with this one.

• “Every election in which we can get a RonPaulitician in office is crucial. ALL of them from local, county, state, and national elections. The Revolution is about taking the entire runaway, reckless government back, not just the office of the President. This has to happen regardless of the outcome of the 2008 Presidential race. This can’t be a one election effort, it has to continue from now on. Remember that every RonPaulitician we have in Congress is another vote against future Patriot Acts, unbalanced budgets, bad monetary and foreign policy, and illegal wars that affect each and every one of us. How do you eat an elephant? (no Republican party pun intended ) One bite at a time. (hopefully with many others helping!) The whole reason we are in this mess today is because Americans became apathetic, lazy, and were not paying attention to what was going on. Thankfully people are waking up finally but extensive damage has already been done. As for the 2008 Presidential race, Ron Paul has already won in that the R3volution has been begun, and the window for doing so peacefully is closing. If anyone is not looking at this as a lifetime commitment, then not much has changed from what got us in the place we are presently in.” page 10

Ron Paul makes no bones that he is a Libertarian. BJ is a Libertarian. He told that to Paul Stam himself. He also told Bill Carraway he could not support the NCGOP Platform. He told Dan Cote the same thing. He told Martha Jenkins he didn’t know if he was in the right party and he might run as an independent. One of his supporters told me that they would take over the precincts and spread through the groups like a virus.

We all need to realize what is happening here.

The only candidate to file in the 4th District so far that is a “true Republican” and supports the Republican Platform is Augustus Cho. He has served the Republican Party and has stated publicly time and again that he is a true conservative and supports the Republican Platform. All this makes it even more important for good Republicans to be sure to attend their precinct meetings to support the true Republicans and our Republican platform!!

low for the U.S. dollar against the Chinese yuan:

China yuan central parity rate set at record 7.2566 to dollar vs 7.2672

I guess we’re celebrating… it’s the inevitable consequence of our twin deficits, the $9.2 trillion (yes, it’s now 9.2) national debt and over $800 billion current account deficit. When I was in China this summer, the rate was closer to 7.5 to 1.

So is this good news, or bad news? As with many things economic, you can’t really talk in terms of “good” and “bad”. It just is.

Imports from China are a bit more expensive. Chinese buyers will find our goods (and our companies, and commodities priced in dollars) a bit less expensive. Companies earning money in yuan will see their earnings grow based upon appreciation of the currency alone.

The self-correcting nature of trade and currency imbalances suggests that our currency will continue weakening as we try to reduce our deficits by repaying in “cheaper” dollars. At some point, we’ll be forced to again “work for a living” when a weaker currency makes goods and materials on the international market relatively more expensive.

But we’ll still be competing for our own raw materials and finished goods with consumers in a global market who have more valuable currency to spend. As a corollary, the U.S. consumer stands to lose its status as the privileged “consumption engine” of the global economy to the growing Asian (and especially Chinese) middle class. Watch your grocery bill, and your energy bill.

Wait, you mean we can’t thrive and prosper as a free country by issuing new government debt alone?

It’s not every day one gets to experience history. But on December 19-20, 2007, I and some friends from the Triangle Ron Paul Meetup joined Michael Maresco for a slice of his cross-country cycling road trip from Santa Monica, California to Washington, D.C.

I’m an avid cyclist, so I’m easily excited about a good bike ride. When I heard about Michael pedaling away from the Santa Monica pier in October, well, that was just too much to pass up. Thanks to help from a supporter in Texas as well as grassroots folks in South Carolina, I was able contact Ken and Shirley, his excellent support team, as he was approaching Charlotte. Then with help from Kevin Coggins, owner of The Spin Cycle, we suggested a route that would take us right through the heart of the Triangle and around our state capitol before exiting north to Henderson, NC and onwards to D.C.

The plans came together nicely, as Michael, Ken, and Shirley arrived in Cary on Wednesday night. We had a great Italian dinner with the Meetup at Casa Carbone (fantastic family restaurant!), and rose early Thursday morning for the ride. We met at The Spin Cycle, and my friend Jeff volunteered to drive the support truck so Ken and Shirley could get some time in the saddle, as well. It was a cool and crystal-clear day, absolutely perfect for a ride.

Our Meetup’s own Dean Hodgkins is a professional photographer, and he shot a fantastic portfolio from the “pregame festivities”. Here are some excerpts…

Michael in front of the support trailer

Michael being interviewed in front of The Spin Cycle by Patrick, a nice guy from Cable 14 who responded to our Meetup’s press release

Michael talking with Kevin Coggins, owner of The Spin Cycle. They’re a great LBS that sold me my Felt F4C (still loving it after 3,400 miles), and Kevin was kind enough to help us plan the route as well as give Michael some tubes and a new gel seat cover!

Patrick shot some footage of Michael and Kevin talking. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to capture Cable 14’s segment for posterity, but I heard it was good.

Michael, Shirley, Ken and I prepare to hit the road

The best part of the “pregame” was my four-year old son warming up to Michael’s camera, and agreeing to discuss the importance of a Constitutional federal government:

Thanks to a handy webapp called MotionBased and my GPS-enabled cycling computer, we documented the ride for posterity:

We had hoped to go the distance with Michael to Henderson, but my time was limited since we were starting our drive to Florida for Christmas that evening. More importantly, though, Michael’s lesson was that success isn’t defined by how quickly one covers the miles. The ride gave us a number of worthwhile interactions with folks, and we made it into a leisurely spin with more than a few excellent conversations along the way.

As you can see from the map, our local crew turned back just after crossing Falls Lake, and Michael, Ken, and Shirley continued to Henderson before making it all the way to Washington, DC for Christmas. It was an honor and a privilege to be part of his journey, and riding with Michael for a day reinforced some critical lessons I hope to pass on to my children:

• You don’t need to be a “professional” to make a difference. Michael had never ridden a road bike before starting this odyssey in October, and he completed this amazing journey on a $250 Schwinn bike that required only lots of tires and tubes, a new bottom bracket bearing set in Louisiana, and a new gel seat cover in North Carolina. No technical cycling gear, no full carbon frame, and no Dura Ace components.
• Committed people working together can accomplish amazing things. Michael’s ride came together spontaneously as he made his way across the country, with supporters reaching out through Meetups to fill gaps and provide logistical support.
• Finally, the longest journey starts with a single step. It sounds trite, but Michael’s description of walking up some of the early steep grades getting out of California was downright inspiring. He just kept pedaling, though, and eventually found himself in Washington, D.C.

Let’s hope everyone working to restore a Constitutional federal government keeps pedaling, and meets with the same result!