Anthony Johnson Officially Endorses Ron Paul for President : Does so on the Basis of Opposing Radical Extremism

 
While I realize I am not a major celebrity, and that this endorsement comes as nothing less than obvious to long time readers and viewers, I have decided to officially endorse Ron Paul for President.

I have made this decision to endorse Ron Paul, and lay out some basic points as to why he is my choice, because while not enormous, the reach of my voice is significant enough to warrant making this endorsement.

The totality of my work being viewed over 150,000 times per month, and climbing.

Something few 23 year olds can claim anywhere in the world, from any profession or background.

Something I intend to leverage to the max in this endorsement, regardless of the size of the impact this endorsement will have.

~~~

There are three easy to understand reasons why I am supporting Ron Paul, perfectly illustrated in the picture seen below.

From left to right they read federal reserve, IRS, and military slavery. These terms represent institutions, concepts, and practices I absolutely despise, hate to the highest degree possible, and will oppose to the day I die.

The federal reserve target is representative of fiat currency, and more importantly, the legal tender laws used today to violently force you to use the “reserve notes” (US dollars) that the united States Federal Reserve prints.

To be clear, in the year 2011, in the united States of America, the freest country on earth, you will be arrested by any means necessary if you choose to create and use your own money, yourself, through a bank, or otherwise.

If you defend your life in this scenario by resisting arrest — and the imprisonment which follows — with equal or greater force — such as you would use in a mugging or robbery — you will be shot and killed by law enforcement officers.

You would be labeled a “crazy domestic terrorist”, and it would be hailed a victory for law enforcement who gunned down the man or woman who wanted to use their own money, rather than money forced upon them.

To be clear, this is bat shit insane in a professed free society.

Ron Paul absolutely opposes the Federal Reserve and their theft-by-inflation robbery of the people of these united States(which means that they print so much money, so fast, it rapidly devalues the money you actually hold).

Ron Paul opposes the federal reserve and has sought to abolish it since before I was BORN. His plan as president is to phase the federal reserve out of existence as fast as practically possible. He absolutely opposes legal tender laws — along with all unjustified use of force against people who have not actually committed acts of violence or fraud.

The IRS target represents income tax, and more importantly, violently enforced tax. Which is to say that for refusing to pay, say a tax on your income, you do not lose access to services, you face violence.

The same process that applies to legal tender laws also applies here. For refusing to participate in say, income tax, you are arrested, hauled to court, and ultimately, sentenced to jail.

If you resist this process with equal or greater force — such as you would a mugging or robbery — you will be shot. Having hurt no one, you will be murdered by law enforcement officers. You’ll be called a “domestic terrorist”, and it will be hailed as a victory for law enforcement by local as well as national news stations.

To be clear, this is absolutely bat shit insane in a professed free society. It would only make sense in a society under the rule of say, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or communist China.

It is utterly incoherent in this country, and Ron Paul absolutely opposes the IRS, the income tax, and all violently enforced tax for that matter. He will work to abolish them in that order.

He opposes them so much that in the interim period, which would be met with much resistance from closet communists and fascist pigs that have invaded my country, I believe he would issue presidential pardons to any individual that was accused of any sort of crime relating to personal income tax.

Such as he would pardon all non violent drug offenders — getting high as a kite on any flavor of drug you choose being perfectly legal under the declaration of independence and the federal constitution of these united States.

The military slavery target in the image represents military conscription, or “the draft”. Many people write this subject off as irrelevant, however, I argue that THAT is precisely why a potential draft is so dangerous: it is not discussed or seriously opposed by any candidate currently running for President, in any party, except Ron Paul.

What does exercising your liberty and resisting “the draft” mean, applied in real life?

It means for refusing to be a slave in the military, you will be arrested, dragged to court, and forcefully locked in a cage, like an animal. Local and state law enforcement will not protect you from this process, in fact they will be the ones helping to carry out this process, in direct violation of their oaths to the federal constitution of these united American States.

While I realize there is a long tradition and tolerance for slavery in this country in the flavor of violently enforced military service, tolerance and tradition DO NOT DICTATE LAW. Contrary to the lies you’ve been told since birth, law is not a matter of opinion, perspective, whim, wish, or emotion.  It is determined by fundamentals of reality, and what is physically written down in pursuance there of.

Consequently, it is true of every country earth that unalienable rights were not, and cannot ever be delegated to government (or anyone else for that matter, hence the “unalienable” part).

Unique to any government operating in a union or under a contract — like the US Constitution and the federal union of States it represents — validated and connected to reality BY the declaration of independence, those unalienable, individual, easily observable rights are positively asserted in that legally binding document that declared total secession from Great Britain.

To be clear, like legal tender laws and income tax, if you resist a military draft in the defense of your life by the means necessary — which means equal or greater force directed towards the individuals attempting to ship you off to kill Muslim people — you will be shot and murdered in your own home by law enforcement officers. In the freest country on earth, you will be labeled a “domestic terrorist” and it will be hailed as a victory for all law enforcement agencies involved.

Having rationally defended your unalienable rights, legally asserted in the declaration of independence, you will be FUCKING DEAD.

Like in the case of legal tender laws and income tax, gunning people down in their own homes for refusing to sacrifice themselves for a worthless cause, remains a radical, extremist position held implicitly by

and on, and on down the 2012 presidential lineup.

Ron Paul absolutely opposes slavery in all forms in this country, for any reason what so ever — that includes the military, at any time, and under any context or condition. You have a RIGHT to your LIFE and your LIBERTY.

You have a RIGHT not to be gunned down in your own home for refusing to participate in income tax, legal tender laws, or wars of aggression.

I will repeat myself so it is ultra-clear: income tax, legal tender laws/federal reserve, and military conscription, are radical positions. I am not a radical, and as a fourth generation American, second generation Floridian, and young business owner, I simply cannot get behind these EXTREME positions that all candidates running, with the exception of Ron Paul, ENDORSE.

I’m a realist. I’m a practical man, and I simply have to endorse the only rational candidate running for president. He opposes government sponsored murder of people in their own homes, like any sane, practical, reasonable person would oppose.

A vote for any candidate but Ron Paul is a vote for war, a vote for income tax, a vote for legal tender laws, a vote for military slavery — and a vote for killing people who do not wish to participate in these things, and in fact recognize their legal right not to.  They recognize that the US Constitution in it’s entirety cannot ever include the violation of unalienable rights, the non-contradictory protection and securement of which was legally asserted as the sole purpose of government in the declaration of independence.

A vote for Ron Paul is the only rational, practical, reasonable, sane vote you can make this presidential election, because he is the only candidate who does not support initiations of violence. Such violence, like in the 3 examples I gave, are CRAZY, radical, and extreme. Implicitly endorsing the murder of people for not paying income tax, refusing to join the military, and using their own money, should land you in the NUT HOUSE, not the White House.

With that said, let it be known, I endorse Ron Paul for president. I support him 100% and his positions on the issues 99.99999999% of the time. If you value your life, I strongly encourage you to do everything within your power to help him win the Republican nomination, and the presidency of these united States. Send him money. Share and support any video or media item that endorses him in any way.

If you live overseas, FIND A WAY.

If you happen to be loaded with cash (more than the $2,500 contribution limit to his campaign), send money to the Revolution Pac, which can receive unlimited contributions.

Thanks for tuning in. Live free or die.

— Anthony Dream Johnson

About Anthony Dream Johnson

CEO, founder, and architect of The 21 Convention, Anthony Dream Johnson is the leading force behind the world's first and only "panorama event for life on earth". He has been featured on WGN Chicago, and in the NY Times #1 best seller The Four Hour Work Week.    His stated purpose for the work he does is "the actualization of the ideal man", a purpose that has led him to found and host The 21 Convention across 3 continents and for 6 years in a row. Anthony blogs vigorously at TheDreamLounge.net and Declarationism.com.

, , , ,

24 Responses to Anthony Johnson Officially Endorses Ron Paul for President : Does so on the Basis of Opposing Radical Extremism

  1. Hugo January 8, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

    Amen!

  2. Theo January 10, 2012 at 1:17 pm #

    Dude, you need to work on your speaking. This is a joke. Stop reading speeches and go to a Toastmaster’s club…because your speaking sucks bad!!!! I keep telling you this but you ignore it. Why?

    Do yourself a favor if you expect to get big like Anthony Robbins or Brian Tracey or some other decent speakers. You hurt the 21 Convention by being one of the weakest speakers there. You are the leader of YOUR event, you need to be on the best speakers there, not the weakest. Use 2012 to change.

    I hope you really go to a Toastmaster’s in your area. Watching this video was like pulling teeth, not because of the content but bc of the delivery!!!! Still the delivery hurts your message.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson January 10, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

      This isn’t speaking, it’s reading off a screen. You are right though that I am not a skilled speaker.

  3. Shawn January 15, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

    Hi Anthony!

    I think paying taxes is the cost of living in a society that takes care of you. Education, vaccination, the possibility to sell your goods or whatever you may offer etc. In what way is this theft? How will a society without taxes be? Who will build the roads and who will feed you your vitamin K when you are born? More importantly – who will pay for these things?

    Kind regards, Shawn!

    • Anthony Dream Johnson January 15, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

      Hey Shawn

      Thanks for your comment. As for the answer, I am not against government in and of itself, so I am NOT necessarily opposed to those things you mentioned. The contradiction in your thinking is two fold however. One: you assume that the actual and primary purpose of government is to provide these things — and the secondary (at best) purpose is to protect your individual life and liberty.

      Think about what this means. You are stating that government should first build a road or a school, before protecting you from violence — from criminals, a foreign army, etc. I think you would agree that this is absurd.

      The second fallacy in your thinking is that these things cannot be provided for by individuals and private organizations. You mention education. There are tens of thousands of private schools all over the United States, not to mention private universities. The idea that private organizations cannot provide schools is a little silly, don’t you think?

      Second, you assume that if things do exist that ONLY government can provide, that they must be provided for by VIOLENCE. This is more than a little crazy, because it means hurting, and even killing people, if they do not want to participate in your government run project. You’re talking about killing an old man or woman who wants to live alone and leave everyone alone, if they do not pay income taxes on whatever little income they continue to make.

      The same is true for everyone else. If they do not want to support the things you are suggesting can only be provided for by government, you’re suggesting we kill them if they don’t pay voluntarily.

      Why can these things not be provided for by voluntary fees? The only alternative is the violence you are suggesting, which sounds pretty crazy to me. Does it sound crazy to you when it’s laid out like I have explained it here? It should because it’s wrong to murder people.

      — Anthony

      • Shawn January 16, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

        Hey again Anthony!

        First off, you read way too much into my last statement/question:

        1) “One: you assume that the actual and primary purpose of government is to provide these things — and the secondary (at best) purpose is to protect your individual life and liberty. ”

        – I never assumed any primary purposes. I merely pointed out some of its (society/goverment’s) responsibilies, not what comes first. I am not sure how familiar you are with human rights, but many (most?) require serious resources (and money) in order for “society” to take care of them, and this is where it gets tricky. Is it possible to NOT violate most people’s human rights without some form of taxation system?

        2) “You are stating that government should first build a road or a school, before protecting you from violence — from criminals, a foreign army, etc.”

        – Never stated this – your interpretation.

        3) “The second fallacy in your thinking is that these things cannot be provided for by individuals and private organizations.”

        – Never said so.

        4) “Second, you assume that if things do exist that ONLY government can provide, that they must be provided for by VIOLENCE. This is more than a little crazy, because it means hurting, and even killing people, if they do not want to participate in your government run project”.

        – This is again your view and interpretation. I never claimed anything must be provided for by violence!

        To end off, do you believe it is your RIGHT, as a free person to participate in a government run project? Is it merely a benefit, or is it a choice? If so, and If you decide to be a part of this society, is it then your right to only partially participate? Can you benefit from some of the opportunities like work and food without paying taxes? To leech off of everybody else (who pay taxes and in effect pay for your human rights and protection? How would a society without taxes look like?

        I am not in any way claiming to have all the answers, but maybe taxation is the most “transferable” solution from theory of an ideal world, into the real one?

        – looking forward to hear your (and others’) point of view on these things.

        Kind regards, Shawn!

  4. Armi Legge January 18, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

    Thank you Anthony – It’s refreshing to hear people put what these people are suggesting in real terms instead of evading what they are saying with useless bromides. Keep up the great work!

    -Armi

  5. Shawn Belle February 2, 2012 at 11:10 am #

    And by the way Anthony: You mistake taxes themselves for the consequences of not paying taxes. Two entirely different subjects!

    • Anthony Dream Johnson February 2, 2012 at 12:15 pm #

      No Shawn, that is the entire point of everything I have said about taxes. They are the same subject. The consequences of not paying taxes stems directly from our definition of “taxes”, which generally includes the consequence of violence and death for not paying them: ie “violent enforcement”.

      I seek to remove this aspect of the definition, because it is evil. The ends do not justify the means. Evil means can never produce good ends.

      • Armi Legge February 2, 2012 at 12:40 pm #

        Shawn,
        It should also be pointed out that taxes are just money taken from the public. You say,

        “Who will build the roads…”
        Private companies who fill the demand for roads.

        “…and who will feed you your vitamin K when you are born?”

        A parent, if they have a basic understanding of nutrition.

        “More importantly – who will pay for these things?”

        Individuals would, with their own money. The government doesn’t create anything – it can only use violence or the threat of violence to take from individuals.

        -Armi

      • Shawn February 13, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

        You don’t seem to identify that the enforcing itself is different from the basic idea behind taxes.

  6. Shawn February 2, 2012 at 5:03 pm #

    ARMI:
    “A parent, if they have a basic understanding of nutrition.”
    – I bet most people have no clue what supplements a baby needs (how much, at what time etc.) Most parents today feed their kids Mountain Dew for crying out loud. Treating different people in a society equally is the same thing as, wait for it, treating equal people differently. In other words: it is blatant discimination to act on the assumption that parents have this understanding. You would need to educate people in a society, and that takes more coordination and resources than most would ever imagine.

    “Private companies who fill the demand for roads”
    – Gladly fill the demands you said? Do you know how much the Interstate Highway System cost for example? About $425 billion according to some sources. Even if you could find the poor souls able to pay for this, I suspect you would have to create some sort of system to govern the builiding of these roads, no?

    That is the irony of all these problems. Your response always seems to be: “the individual”. My response is that it is not that simple. To perform important tasks in a society, you need a collective effort to support/supervise/coordinate/regulate/govern etc. Isnt this what government and taxes are? The direct transfer of these basic principles of a society from theory, into the real world? Are there better “executions” of these principles? Whatever the answer to that is, I believe you “attack” the problem at least one step too early.

    That leads me to my last question, Armi: What is the difference between government and society in your humble opinion? Are they living in symbiosis, or are they two totally different, independent entities?

    ANTHONY:
    What I meant to say is that you don’t seem to differentiate between the enforcing (of taxes) itself and the basic idea behind taxes. You equal the response to an action, to the action itself.

    And by the way, why haven’t you answered my questions in my post on the 16th of January?

    Kind regards, Shawn!

    • Armi Legge February 3, 2012 at 4:57 pm #

      I’ll assume you understand which statements I’m addressing without quoting you.

      – So you think the government has a better understanding of nutrition? It doesn’t matter whether or not the person needs a supplement health insurance, or food, what matters is
      whether or not they steal it from someone else or earn it.

      – A private business always has lower production costs than government. The railroads are the best example of this. Every single government funded railroad in the 1800’s went bankrupt. The only private railroad was also the only one to succeed. Even if you assume the cost of building the roads was the same for a government and a business, the only difference you and I are debating is whether or not the money should be stolen (taxed), or handed over voluntarily, as in a free market.

      “Are there better “executions” of these principles?”

      -It depends on what you’re principles are.

      “What is the difference between government and society in your humble opinion? Are they living in symbiosis, or are they two totally different, independent entities?”

      A civilization does need government, but for one purpose: to defend individual rights. The only rights an individual has are life, liberty, and property. Anything a government does besides defined those three entities is immoral and beyond the proper role of government.

      Great questions Shawn 🙂

      -Armi

      • Shawn February 13, 2012 at 6:50 pm #

        Armi: Not sure if I should be flattered about that last sentence there, or if I am a victim of some sort of irony…

        Anyway, I think you managed to miss all of my points:

        1) Roads: i am not against privately owned corporations… I was merely asking who would give away their money to pay for other people’s roads? I am still not convinced that there would be enough people willing to pay for others’ roads in the society you depict..

        2) Nutrition/health issues: I was not talking about who knows more. I was talking about the distribution of the knowledge of health (nutrition is only a very small part of this, of course), and government’s/society’s role in this. In my opinion this is one of government’s most important roles – they have an absolute responsibility to inform the society on issues of health. Do you really disagree with this?

        • Anthony Dream Johnson February 15, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

          “In my opinion this is one of government’s most important roles – they have an absolute responsibility to inform the society on issues of health.”

          There’s little I could disagree with more. How did they gain this responsibility? Who delegated this responsibility to the federal government? When was it done? Who is to decide what “issues” they promote, which they oppose, and which they ignore?

          You’re talking about handing over the entire global issue of “health education” to the most bogged down, dysfunctional, bureaucratic institution in the history of the world that only knows how to deal in the terms of a gun, life, and death.

          What do you want to happen? To take money from me, threaten to kill me and/or throw me in ass-rape prison if I don’t pay, call it a tax, and hope the giant federal government uses it to promote the “right” information without wasting a shit ton of the money they took, or losing it to corruption?

          Talk about a fucking pipe dream. Let me know what drugs you are taking. I want in on this nightmare fantasy.

          • Shawn February 20, 2012 at 3:09 pm #

            Anthony and Armi: Chew on this: If the government’s only responsibility is to protect their citizens lives, property, and liberty – how does this NOT effect their responsibility to EDUCATE their citizens on health. When not doing so could KILL these citizens.

            “I do disagree, since no one has an innate right to be spoon fed health information.” Ok, so if your government sits on information that would protect your LIFE and LIBERTY (and even PROPERTY), you have no right to be told this particular information? Contradiction of the year right there..

            “There’s little I could disagree with more. How did they gain this responsibility? Who delegated this responsibility to the federal government? ” YOU for crying out loud!

            How the government is supposed to do this is core of the discussion here. Not the WHY!

          • Shawn April 25, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

            Are you aware that YOUR fucking pipedream is a reality in Somalia – no taxes, and no restrictions on what guns you can carry.. That is a nightmare, not a dream. Grow up already.

            • Anthony Dream Johnson April 25, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

              War ravaged Somalia is a common intellectual cop-out from liberals. It has nothing to do with a free society … it’s complete chaos and anarchy.

              Declarationism is not a lack of government, it’s the correct amount.

        • Armi Legge February 15, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

          No one should pay for someone else’s property without their consent. That’s called stealing.

          “In my opinion this is one of government’s most important roles…”

          You think one of the government’s roles is to disseminate health information?

          “I was not talking about who knows more.”

          But you don’t think it matters if they’re right or wrong?

          I do disagree, since no one has an innate right to be spoon fed health information. That’s something they need to seek out and learn. When you say it’s the government’s job to provide this information, you’re saying it’s right for some people to be educated at the expense of others, without their consent, which is also called stealing.

          • Shawn February 27, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

            “You think one of the government’s roles is to disseminate health information?”
            – In some cases. Ex: A newborn with no awareness of its own existence and no sense of self dies because government chose to not take actions to inform the mother appropriately. I am talking of effort from government, not force.

            “But you don’t think it matters if they’re right or wrong?”
            – Of course I do

            “I do disagree, since no one has an innate right to be spoon fed health information. That’s something they need to seek out and learn.”
            – what about the child described above? You expect him to seek out and learn too?

            • Anthony Dream Johnson February 27, 2012 at 8:52 pm #

              Children are not the responsibility, and are ESPECIALLY, not the property of government.

              Children are the responsibility of those who brought him or her into the world — ie, the parents.

              If parents murder their child, they have violated that child’s right to life.

              If parents fail to understand a certain aspect of human health, and the child dies as a result, no right has been violated, unless it can be proven they knowingly fostered the death of the child, which goes back to murder and has nothing to do with human health.

              You need to read what Joe wrote. Government is not here to protect anyone’s life — their role is to protect your right to live and live free.

              • Shawn February 28, 2012 at 5:24 am #

                “Children are the responsibility of those who brought him or her into the world — ie, the parents.

                If parents murder their child, they have violated that child’s right to life. ”

                – Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with you on this Anthony.

                – On another note – whose responsibility is a newborn if the parents die? Could government do nothing, and defend doing nothing by hiding behind the negative rights? Wouldn’t you agree that this government would fail the baby in terms of protecting its right to live (and live freely)? I guess for government to intervene would mean handing out “positive rights” to this baby, and therefore be wrong in your book?

                “You need to read what Joe wrote. Government is not here to protect anyone’s life — their role is to protect your right to live and live free.”

                – I have read Joe’s post, and I understand what that view on government encompasses. But I still disagree that government could (and should) simply hide behind “negative rights”.

  7. Shawn February 16, 2012 at 9:02 am #

    Anthony and Armi: Chew on this: If the government’s only responsibility is to protect their citizens lives, property, and liberty – how does this NOT effect their responsibility to EDUCATE their citizens on health. When not doing so could KILL these citizens.

    “I do disagree, since no one has an innate right to be spoon fed health information.” Ok, so if your government sits on information that would protect your LIFE and LIBERTY (and even PROPERTY), you have no right to be told this particular information? Contradiction of the year right there..

    “There’s little I could disagree with more. How did they gain this responsibility? Who delegated this responsibility to the federal government? ” YOU for crying out loud!

    How the government is supposed to do this is core of the discussion here. Not the WHY!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Rights are Always Non-Contradictory, and You Do Not have a Choice in the Matter | Anthony Johnson | The Dream Lounge - February 20, 2012

    […] one example he writes, If the government’s only responsibility is to protect their citizens lives, property, and […]

Make your mark