You've heard the saying, "Actions speak louder than words." It's really true.

People can talk a good game all they like. It's under the stress of having to decide, and take action, that their true selves are revealed.

America is in a grave crisis, perhaps one approaching the years leading up to the Civil War. It's an economic crisis, a crisis of government and liberty, and a crisis of a society undergoing gradual decay because of government injustice and dysfunction (as of now, still permitted by the people.) 

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody! You built a factory out there? Good for you! But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You built a factory, and it turned into something terrific or a great idea: God bless! Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Q. I read with interest your commentary on free speech, published at Capitalism Magazine. I am troubled by the idea of “freedom of ALL speech”. If ideas matter, and they lead to action, then perhaps speech that advocates the violation of fundamental rights such as life, liberty and property should be restricted.

Should the advocacy of murder, slavery, oppression and plunder be granted the sanction of being treated as civilized discourse? If the purpose of government is to protect people from physical harm, isn’t it reasonable to restrict the advocacy of initiating force and fraud?

If it is illegal to shout “fire” in a crowded theater, should it be illegal to advocate communism? I think communism has deprived more people of their lives than theater fires.

Granted, no current government defines “the public interest” properly as limited to the protection of fundamental rights, but perhaps it is the sanction of “freedom of ALL speech” to include the advocacy of plunder and oppression that has brought us to our current state. 

Newsmax.com reports: "Republican voters are split on whether Rick Perry’s hardline views on Social Security make him a better choice for president or a worse one. One-in-five say they are more likely to vote for the Texas governor because of his opinion that the Social Security system is no better than a Ponzi scheme, USA Today reports. But the same number say they would be less likely to mark their ballot for him, according to a Gallup Poll sponsored by the paper. The one thing the GOP voters are united on is that by a majority of more than two-to-one, they believe his position on Social Security would hurt him in a general election."