Wednesday, May 11, 2011


by Joan Hough

How wrong it is for folks to accredit the idea being circulated that Dr. Ron Paul thinks “Prayer will be eliminated for Americans if drugs are not legalized." This anti-Paul impression is being circulated on Internet by somebody who is, quite evidently, incapable of listening and comprehending, so has completely misinterpreted the videoed words of Dr. Paul's. She has come out with this and is circulating it on line, creating a false impression in the minds of others. What can be the motive behind this? Is it that the originator of it is merely a poor listener or is her purpose a sinister one?

I prefer to think that the lady originator of this bizarre drug-prayer horror is one who simply has difficulty in dealing with abstract language--can only comprehend, for example, that apples and oranges are alike because they both have skins and there is no possible way that mountains and oceans can be alike because they are so "different." The concept of "geographical features" is beyond her ken. She may even conclude that birds and kittens are alike because they "both have feathers."

Whatever her problem, her conclusion regarding Dr. Paul and Prayer is absolutely wrong. It is a total misinterpretation of what was said and meant by Dr. Paul. Individual liberties are what concern him. If the central government is so all powerful that it can control even one of our individual freedoms/liberties, it can control all of them and we then live under total COMMUNISM-- our government has replaced GOD!

When a government controls any aspect of one's God-given liberties, it is a direct attack on the U.S. Constitution which guarantees all freedoms and was, in the history of the world, the best of all foundations for the best of all types of government--at the time it was approved by the states. (Although some folks conclude that the Constitution created by the Confederate States of America in 1861 was a great improvement over the one created by the sovereign, independent states on March 4, 1789.)

Our government, originally, was designed to be a government of LAWS. It is not supposed to be a Democracy.* Proof of this is that "D" word is not found in any of this nation's original documents.( The popular re-definition of the word “Democracy” has a most intriguing history.)

In a Democracy, the government is allowed to do whatever the majority of the people (on any given day) decide they want. If a majority of folks decide that all people with freckles shall be incarcerated, that then becomes a mandate for the government. If the majority of the voters decide that Sharia Law will become the Law of the Land, American women can prepare to wear hijabs. Minority opinions, in a Democracy, are inconsequential because the government is not based on law. Will of the wisp rules become all powerful, until the wind blows in a different direction.

Sadly, too many Americans do not understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy and have been absolutely brain-washed to think that ours is a Democracy and that a Democracy* is the epitome of wonderful government types. What a misunderstanding! Our forefathers deliberately eliminated the possibility of Democracy as our type of government because they were fully aware of its failures--it's weaknesses--its inescapable proclivity to convert itself into Socialism (Communism).

For those who need assistance in really comprehending the various evils of Democracy, it is recommended that they read a skinny, little book written in the 1800’s by one of the world's greatest thinkers-- Frederic Bastiat. It is entitled THE LAW. To understand the tenets of Communism, a good beginning can be found in the Marx and Engels little book, THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. The reader of it may be astonished to learn how many planks out of the Communist platform are now legal parts of our U.S. form of government--a stomach-turning amount! A serious student of American history with more investigation can learn when some of the Communist planks were first put into the U.S. government by which political party and which U.S. President.

Dr. Paul contends the control of drugs is not the job of a national government BUT OF EACH STATE'S. [This, as we know, means that if a citizen does not wish to live in a state where forced drug taking becomes a state law (HA! What a joke!) he/she can move to one where only 90 year old folks can be forced to take heroin.] Of course I'm making fun of the hysteria that is being created by somebody's failure to listen carefully to the Paul interview video. To avoid being misunderstood, I must break this down by saying that if one does not like the drug laws in a state, one can move to a state with a different state laws.

We had, as Dr. Paul states, over 100 years of no drug prohibition laws. Few of our ancestors became addicts during that time frame. It is a little different tale now since drugs were glamorized by those wishing to add more jingle to their pockets. These folks had and still have the ability to propagandize in a manner designed to influence good men and women churchgoers that only laws against something can create morality in Americans.

Our holiest of books declares this is not how "goodness" is born.

So we can conclude that drug prohibition, just as did the old alcohol prohibition, benefits some mighty high stepping politicians and mafia type community leaders and causes their support of legal prohibition of drugs. Could this be one of the ugly reasons that the Mexican border has been kept open by every political party and every U.S. President? Why in a Christian nation can the truth about the drug law be not only ignored, but denied? Are we all unable to see what lies behind the "popular” assertions promulgated by those in power? Why haven't American's learned from the prohibition of alcohol that laws do not make people good, but rather make some folks powerful and rich and serve to set off overwhelming temptations in others.

Legalize drugs and tax them. Prohibit them to children, just as alcohol is now prohibited. Arrest those providing drugs to kids. Then we can see drug Lords, regardless of their status in high places, do an "Al Capone" in prison. We will, also, see the elimination of the commercial motives of the Mexican drug gangs to send their drug-hauling mules across the border; we may even see the dissolution of Mexican gangs, entirely.--and watch our borders close to illegals.

Think of the lives of all those folks now being wasted and ruined in prison because of a bit of something now illegal found in glove compartments. Think of the conditioning of these offenders while in prison, to the extent that they lose all hope for a normal existence. Think of all the monies that will be saved when our young folks are no longer incarcerated, no longer fill up our prisons and cause the need to build more and more.

*It is most interesting how easily Americans have been converted to think of our form of government as a "Democracy." The definition of Democracy can be bent
to mean anything, it seems:
A "modern version of democracy is called "DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM," a term made famous by VLADIMIR ULYINOV LENIN. As the leader of the RUSSIAN REVOLUTION in 1917, he established a communist government that allowed no private property to exist. All members of society were theoretically equal. However, Lenin considered a small "vanguard of the revolution" necessary to guide the people and establish order. So a small group of leaders make decisions in the name of the people, based on their perceptions of what the people want and need."


Post a Comment

<< Home