They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 Congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices! 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a Senator, a Congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She or He is the leader of the majority party. The speaker and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.


It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted – by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsible. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ, it’s because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way. There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like ‘the economy,’ ‘inflation,’ or ‘politics’ that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and no one else; and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.



We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

I just think that maybe the blue crooks could do a better job for the next few years than the red crooks. Honestly, I know things won't magically get better . . . but I'm gonna vote anyway. Why the hell would I vote for McCain? You have to take steps to create an environment more conducive to alternative viewpoints.

I don't want Roe v. Wade overturned, I don't want creationism taught in public schools, I want kids to be educated about sexually transmitted diseases and birth control, and I want a foreign policy that at least gives lip service to the idea of a global community, not unilateral American dominance.

I just think of choosing a President as choosing the national motto for four years at a time.

McCain/Palin: Oil, babies, guns, and Jesus!
Obama/Biden: Stop being a dick, America.

i generally try to vote with my wallet. sadly that would point me in mccain's direction. and that's a very scary thing. if i manage to vote, it would be for ron paul.

bottom line: most americans are too fat and lazy to really get whats going on.

dude, I didn't realise you were British but generally, as a rule, we don't talk like this on open forums. OK, cool?

generally a rePUBElican is a bit easier on the wallet than a democrap.

if you paid attention, that is not the case this year.

I know the difference between anarchism and chaos, and I know that Obama is not going to solve all of the US's problems. But he does have a lot of good plans and policies that WILL help America.

You're also crazy if you think sustainable anarchism has a snowball's chance in hell to work in a country with 300,000,000 people.

And you're even crazier if you think Ron Paul style libertarianism would give you anything resembling the anarchism that you want.

Extremism never works, systems need to be balanced and flexible. Note that balance is not the same as moderation, which is often just plain ineffective. I believe in taking the few good ideas that anarchism has, the good ideas that socialism has, and the good ideas that exist in a REGULATED but mostly free market, and tryin gto work with those ideas in the existing system. Because if you're not working within the system, you better be ready to smash it, and maybe die in the process.

Ron Paul has some points that I do like, but I don't understand why so many people seem willing to overlook his other totally nutjob stances.