Thursday
WHAT I THINK....COLIN COLENSO
Only the most Panglossian Republican die-hard would not recognize the Republican party is in serious trouble. Regardless of whether one supports the war or not, it is pretty clear that Republicans are losing favor due to the war and the effect that war spending is having on the economy. The Republican party will struggle to survive if it is to focus primarily on a policy that disenfranchises a large majority of the nation.
If idealism is at the heart of the support for war then why does the party no longer have the confidence to promote and fight for some its primary conservative ideals of small government, free enterprise, constitutional obedience and liberty?
The Republican party used to stand united and strong against the forces that strove for social welfare, centralized big government, over-regulation, big taxation and big spending. Lately it has compromised on these ideals to appease fringe voters and to avert media criticism of the party's perceived lack of compassion. The Republican party has become the small government party in rhetoric only and usually with a muffled voice when in the company of the party choir.
Optimism may lie in the recent groundswell of support emerging for these conservative ideals, that were not so long ago at the forefront of Republican debates. The catalyst for this groundswell has been the campaign of presidential candidate Ron Paul. His message does not merely attract people of anti-war sentiment, but it ignites a forgotten passion among many Republicans who have found no strong voice for the traditional conservative ideals of small government, free enterprise, constitutional obedience, low taxes and reduced spending.
And it isn't just disenfranchised Republicans flocking to Ron Paul's message. Many liberals and independents are becoming converts to these conservative ideals. How long has it been since liberals began flocking to the Republican party and becoming students of and active proselytes for the ideals of conservatism?
This proves that these ideals are powerful and gaining popularity in this Internet age of communication. It is clearly not just the anti-war message that inspires the Paulites; if it were then similar levels of grassroots support would have arisen for Democrat anti-war advocates Kucinich and Gravel.
Ron Paul's message is far deeper and complete than just being anti-war. At the center of his message is the ideal of smaller government restrained by the constitution and that by inference and with historical references he teaches that war increases the scope and size of government. It increases spending, taxation, debt and inflation. We are seeing the effects of this quite clearly now and that is part of the reason why many in the financial and economics areas are also being drawn to Ron Paul's message of real fiscal conservatism.
Mainstream Republicans should note with great interest the fact that Ron Paul's campaign has enthused a huge, dedicated and determined grassroots Republican movement that has changed the nature of political activism and political fund raising. Ron Paul has over 100,000 Meetup members, 5 times more than all candidates, Republican and Democrat combined. He has a growing nationwide army of door knockers, delegates, sign wavers and so on. He raised over US$12 million dollars in just three one-day online fund raising money bombs in the last few months.
These record-breaking donations came from around one hundred thousand individuals, most of whom discovered Ron Paul on the Internet and most of whom have never before donated to a political campaign. Nothing even close to this has happened for any other presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, on the Internet.
This grassroots movement is beginning to learn the ways of traditional political grassroots action now, with many of them entering their local GOP and becoming involved in local activities, by becoming delegates, precinct leaders and all-round effective activists. A more passionate and enthused bunch, who love what America stands for, it is hard to imagine.
Yet this sometimes motley crew, who could become the new blood of a powerful Republican revival, is often met with chagrin by the Republican mainstream. This is not entirely the fault of mainstream Republicans, who may see Paulites as liberals and libertarians in disguise; this has a lot to do with the Paulites themselves, some of whom see the mainstream Republicans as the opponents of their ideals. But what we need to do is find a middle ground.
Mainstream Republicans should recognize, accept and encourage this new energized movement for what it offers in promoting traditional conservative ideals while the Ron Paul Republicans need to communicate with and support the Republican movement, with a focus on reviving the party as a powerful voice for traditional conservative ideals.
With more mainstream Republican support, the Ron Paul Republicans would receive access to larger and more receptive audiences. While the Ron Paul Republicans assistance to mainstream Republicans would strengthen the GOP with a powerful, energized and technologically savvy arm to the party which resonates and communicates with young voters.
The future of politics will be determined by those who master the new technological mediums. These masters will be decentralized and of large number, unlike the information masters in traditional media. The first generation of the new masters are quite clearly the Ron Paul Republicans. Why risk losing this new generation to the Democratic Party or a third party?
It is time for mainstream Republicans to welcome and assist the Ron Paul Republicans in reviving a stronger GOP with a clear and powerful voice for the future. It is time for mainstream Republicans to support Ron Paul as their best chance, for not only winning the election in 2008, but in reviving the Republican party and its conservative ideals.
If idealism is at the heart of the support for war then why does the party no longer have the confidence to promote and fight for some its primary conservative ideals of small government, free enterprise, constitutional obedience and liberty?
The Republican party used to stand united and strong against the forces that strove for social welfare, centralized big government, over-regulation, big taxation and big spending. Lately it has compromised on these ideals to appease fringe voters and to avert media criticism of the party's perceived lack of compassion. The Republican party has become the small government party in rhetoric only and usually with a muffled voice when in the company of the party choir.
Optimism may lie in the recent groundswell of support emerging for these conservative ideals, that were not so long ago at the forefront of Republican debates. The catalyst for this groundswell has been the campaign of presidential candidate Ron Paul. His message does not merely attract people of anti-war sentiment, but it ignites a forgotten passion among many Republicans who have found no strong voice for the traditional conservative ideals of small government, free enterprise, constitutional obedience, low taxes and reduced spending.
And it isn't just disenfranchised Republicans flocking to Ron Paul's message. Many liberals and independents are becoming converts to these conservative ideals. How long has it been since liberals began flocking to the Republican party and becoming students of and active proselytes for the ideals of conservatism?
This proves that these ideals are powerful and gaining popularity in this Internet age of communication. It is clearly not just the anti-war message that inspires the Paulites; if it were then similar levels of grassroots support would have arisen for Democrat anti-war advocates Kucinich and Gravel.
Ron Paul's message is far deeper and complete than just being anti-war. At the center of his message is the ideal of smaller government restrained by the constitution and that by inference and with historical references he teaches that war increases the scope and size of government. It increases spending, taxation, debt and inflation. We are seeing the effects of this quite clearly now and that is part of the reason why many in the financial and economics areas are also being drawn to Ron Paul's message of real fiscal conservatism.
Mainstream Republicans should note with great interest the fact that Ron Paul's campaign has enthused a huge, dedicated and determined grassroots Republican movement that has changed the nature of political activism and political fund raising. Ron Paul has over 100,000 Meetup members, 5 times more than all candidates, Republican and Democrat combined. He has a growing nationwide army of door knockers, delegates, sign wavers and so on. He raised over US$12 million dollars in just three one-day online fund raising money bombs in the last few months.
These record-breaking donations came from around one hundred thousand individuals, most of whom discovered Ron Paul on the Internet and most of whom have never before donated to a political campaign. Nothing even close to this has happened for any other presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, on the Internet.
This grassroots movement is beginning to learn the ways of traditional political grassroots action now, with many of them entering their local GOP and becoming involved in local activities, by becoming delegates, precinct leaders and all-round effective activists. A more passionate and enthused bunch, who love what America stands for, it is hard to imagine.
Yet this sometimes motley crew, who could become the new blood of a powerful Republican revival, is often met with chagrin by the Republican mainstream. This is not entirely the fault of mainstream Republicans, who may see Paulites as liberals and libertarians in disguise; this has a lot to do with the Paulites themselves, some of whom see the mainstream Republicans as the opponents of their ideals. But what we need to do is find a middle ground.
Mainstream Republicans should recognize, accept and encourage this new energized movement for what it offers in promoting traditional conservative ideals while the Ron Paul Republicans need to communicate with and support the Republican movement, with a focus on reviving the party as a powerful voice for traditional conservative ideals.
With more mainstream Republican support, the Ron Paul Republicans would receive access to larger and more receptive audiences. While the Ron Paul Republicans assistance to mainstream Republicans would strengthen the GOP with a powerful, energized and technologically savvy arm to the party which resonates and communicates with young voters.
The future of politics will be determined by those who master the new technological mediums. These masters will be decentralized and of large number, unlike the information masters in traditional media. The first generation of the new masters are quite clearly the Ron Paul Republicans. Why risk losing this new generation to the Democratic Party or a third party?
It is time for mainstream Republicans to welcome and assist the Ron Paul Republicans in reviving a stronger GOP with a clear and powerful voice for the future. It is time for mainstream Republicans to support Ron Paul as their best chance, for not only winning the election in 2008, but in reviving the Republican party and its conservative ideals.
AN OPEN LETTER TO CONSERVATIVES
Doctor Ron Paul has always been a conservative. He first became politically active supporting Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign in 1964, while he was serving as an Air Force flight surgeon. Ron Paul was one of the few congressmen to rally behind Ronald Reagan’s 1976 bid for the GOP presidential nomination. He was first elected to Congress in 1976 on a Reagan-esque platform of halting inflation, cutting taxes, and shutting down unconstitutional Federal programs. Paul is currently in his tenth term in Congress, where he has earned the nickname "Dr. No" for his strict, constant refusal to vote in favor of legislation that does not pass Constitutional muster.
Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes and never voted to approve deficit spending.
From 2001 to 2004 alone he voted against over 700 bills that would expand the federal government.
Paul’s campaign to re-enter Congress in the 1990’s was backed by the likes of Steve Forbes and hard-core conservatives across the country. His presidential bid has been endorsed by none other than Barry Goldwater, Jr., and Dr. Paul has won much acclaim from noted conservatives such as Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak, and Milton Friedman.
The following is a sampling of Ron Paul’s voting record, and legislation he sponsored in Congress, which highlights his truly Conservative stance on the big issues.
Gun Rights
Texas Republican Paul is one of only 4 House members to earn an A+ rating from Gun Owners of America, indicating gun rights "leadership" in the form of introducing pro-2nd-Amendment legislation. Gun Owners of America characterizes Paul thusly:
Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment. He has sponsored legislation to repeal the following:
• the Brady law;
• the requirement to lock up your safety (guns);
• the law permitting the US to be part of the UN (which, among other attacks on American freedoms, seeks to ban privately transferred firearms);
• participation in UNESCO – which has been used to dumb down US education standards;
• the federal prohibition on importation of guns on a sporting basis test;
• federal prohibitions on any pilot wishing to carry a handgun to and in his cockpit; and, the so-called "assault weapons" ban (prior to its sunsetting in 2004).
Immigration/ Border Security
Ron Paul voted FOR the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing the fencing of large swaths of the southern border.
Paul voted FOR enhanced border security in 2002 (H.R. 3525), which called for more border guards, and stricter Visa rules, especially on visas issued to terrorist-spawning countries like Saudi Arabia.
Ron Paul is the only candidate calling for an end to birthright citizenship – one of the biggest incentives for illegal immigration.
• Sponsor, H.J. RES 46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.
Pro-Life
Dr. Ron Paul was an ob-gyn who delivered over 4,000 babies in private practice. He has always been staunchly pro-life, and takes the proper Constitutional position that criminal laws are determined by the states and the US Supreme Court should have no jurisdiction in the matter. Paul voted for the Right to Life Constitutional Amendment in his early years in Congress. More recently, he has sought the Constitutional option of removing federal court jurisdiction over abortion laws.
In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act (H.R. 300), which would remove federal court jurisdiction over abortion cases arising from state laws and effectively negate Roe v. Wade as binding legal precedent.
• Sponsor, H.R.1094: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
• Voted to ban partial-birth abortion (Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003)
War on Terror/ Foreign Policy
Paul voted FOR US forces going in Afghanistan in 2001 to hunt down Bin Laden (H.J. RES 64), but AGAINST nation building in Afghanistan (H.R. 3994, May 2002)
"I supported going after Al Qaida into Afghanistan – but, lo & behold, the neocons took over. They forgot about Bin Laden. And what they did, they went into nation-building, not only in Afghanistan, they went unjustifiably over into Iraq. And that's why we're in this mess today." –Ron Paul, Iowa Straw Poll debate
Voted FOR enhanced border security in 2002 (HR 3525), which provided for more border guards and stricter visa rules.
Constitutional Anti-Terrorism legislation introduced by Ron Paul:
• Sponsor, H.R.3216 (Marque and Reprisal Act): To authorize the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.
• Sponsor, H.R.3217 (Terror Immigration Elimination Act): To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.
Ron Paul: "The fight against terrorism should be fought largely at our borders."
• Sponsor, H.R. 3305 (Anti-Terrorism Act of 2007): Provides that no federal agency shall prohibit an airline pilot, copilot, or navigator, or law enforcement person specifically detailed for protection of an aircraft, from carrying a firearm.
Ron Paul has always stood firm for national sovereignty; that’s why he has consistently called for US withdraw from the UN:
• Sponsor, H.R. 1146, "To end membership of the United States in the United Nations."
• Sole Sponsor, H.R. 3890 "A bill to limit United States contributions to the United Nations."
He even tried to get the US out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty!
• Sole Sponsor, H.J.RES.566: "A joint resolution withdrawing the United States of America from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, and the Interim Agreement Protocol, and Agreed Interpretations of the Treaty, signed of May 26, 1972."
Economic Policy
As an ardent student of economics in the tradition of the great free-marketers Hayek and von Mises, Ron Paul is definitely the most conservative Congressman when it comes to economic policy:
• Sponsor, H.J. RES. 23, Constitutional Amendment to abolish the income tax
• Sponsor, H.R.1662, requiring the government to mint gold bullion coins (passed)
• Sponsor, H.R.2415: To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.
Congressman Paul has been consistently critical of the Federal Reserve as the cause of inflation and business cycles. He has repeatedly called for the abolition of the central bank and a return to hard money, as authorized by the Constitution (Art. I Sec. 8 and 10). In an early term in Congress, Paul introduced legislation to decrease congressional pay by the rate of inflation.
Additionally, Dr. Paul has tirelessly introduced legislation to reduce taxes on tips and dividends, end the death tax, institute numerous tax deductions, and otherwise whittle away at the IRS.
"The only one behaving like a real republican is Ron Paul, who actually wants to cut spending and get government out of our lives. He won’t win the nomination because too many republicans are into handouts and redistribution, just like democrats." ~ Cal Thomas
"If the Framers of the Constitution were somehow to come back, Ron Paul is one of possibly only three people in Congress that they’d even talk to." ~ Walter Williams, Economist and regular fill-in for Rush Limbaugh
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." ~ Ronald Reagan
Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes and never voted to approve deficit spending.
From 2001 to 2004 alone he voted against over 700 bills that would expand the federal government.
Paul’s campaign to re-enter Congress in the 1990’s was backed by the likes of Steve Forbes and hard-core conservatives across the country. His presidential bid has been endorsed by none other than Barry Goldwater, Jr., and Dr. Paul has won much acclaim from noted conservatives such as Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak, and Milton Friedman.
The following is a sampling of Ron Paul’s voting record, and legislation he sponsored in Congress, which highlights his truly Conservative stance on the big issues.
Gun Rights
Texas Republican Paul is one of only 4 House members to earn an A+ rating from Gun Owners of America, indicating gun rights "leadership" in the form of introducing pro-2nd-Amendment legislation. Gun Owners of America characterizes Paul thusly:
Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment. He has sponsored legislation to repeal the following:
• the Brady law;
• the requirement to lock up your safety (guns);
• the law permitting the US to be part of the UN (which, among other attacks on American freedoms, seeks to ban privately transferred firearms);
• participation in UNESCO – which has been used to dumb down US education standards;
• the federal prohibition on importation of guns on a sporting basis test;
• federal prohibitions on any pilot wishing to carry a handgun to and in his cockpit; and, the so-called "assault weapons" ban (prior to its sunsetting in 2004).
Immigration/ Border Security
Ron Paul voted FOR the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing the fencing of large swaths of the southern border.
Paul voted FOR enhanced border security in 2002 (H.R. 3525), which called for more border guards, and stricter Visa rules, especially on visas issued to terrorist-spawning countries like Saudi Arabia.
Ron Paul is the only candidate calling for an end to birthright citizenship – one of the biggest incentives for illegal immigration.
• Sponsor, H.J. RES 46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.
Pro-Life
Dr. Ron Paul was an ob-gyn who delivered over 4,000 babies in private practice. He has always been staunchly pro-life, and takes the proper Constitutional position that criminal laws are determined by the states and the US Supreme Court should have no jurisdiction in the matter. Paul voted for the Right to Life Constitutional Amendment in his early years in Congress. More recently, he has sought the Constitutional option of removing federal court jurisdiction over abortion laws.
In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act (H.R. 300), which would remove federal court jurisdiction over abortion cases arising from state laws and effectively negate Roe v. Wade as binding legal precedent.
• Sponsor, H.R.1094: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
• Voted to ban partial-birth abortion (Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003)
War on Terror/ Foreign Policy
Paul voted FOR US forces going in Afghanistan in 2001 to hunt down Bin Laden (H.J. RES 64), but AGAINST nation building in Afghanistan (H.R. 3994, May 2002)
"I supported going after Al Qaida into Afghanistan – but, lo & behold, the neocons took over. They forgot about Bin Laden. And what they did, they went into nation-building, not only in Afghanistan, they went unjustifiably over into Iraq. And that's why we're in this mess today." –Ron Paul, Iowa Straw Poll debate
Voted FOR enhanced border security in 2002 (HR 3525), which provided for more border guards and stricter visa rules.
Constitutional Anti-Terrorism legislation introduced by Ron Paul:
• Sponsor, H.R.3216 (Marque and Reprisal Act): To authorize the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.
• Sponsor, H.R.3217 (Terror Immigration Elimination Act): To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.
Ron Paul: "The fight against terrorism should be fought largely at our borders."
• Sponsor, H.R. 3305 (Anti-Terrorism Act of 2007): Provides that no federal agency shall prohibit an airline pilot, copilot, or navigator, or law enforcement person specifically detailed for protection of an aircraft, from carrying a firearm.
Ron Paul has always stood firm for national sovereignty; that’s why he has consistently called for US withdraw from the UN:
• Sponsor, H.R. 1146, "To end membership of the United States in the United Nations."
• Sole Sponsor, H.R. 3890 "A bill to limit United States contributions to the United Nations."
He even tried to get the US out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty!
• Sole Sponsor, H.J.RES.566: "A joint resolution withdrawing the United States of America from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, and the Interim Agreement Protocol, and Agreed Interpretations of the Treaty, signed of May 26, 1972."
Economic Policy
As an ardent student of economics in the tradition of the great free-marketers Hayek and von Mises, Ron Paul is definitely the most conservative Congressman when it comes to economic policy:
• Sponsor, H.J. RES. 23, Constitutional Amendment to abolish the income tax
• Sponsor, H.R.1662, requiring the government to mint gold bullion coins (passed)
• Sponsor, H.R.2415: To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.
Congressman Paul has been consistently critical of the Federal Reserve as the cause of inflation and business cycles. He has repeatedly called for the abolition of the central bank and a return to hard money, as authorized by the Constitution (Art. I Sec. 8 and 10). In an early term in Congress, Paul introduced legislation to decrease congressional pay by the rate of inflation.
Additionally, Dr. Paul has tirelessly introduced legislation to reduce taxes on tips and dividends, end the death tax, institute numerous tax deductions, and otherwise whittle away at the IRS.
"The only one behaving like a real republican is Ron Paul, who actually wants to cut spending and get government out of our lives. He won’t win the nomination because too many republicans are into handouts and redistribution, just like democrats." ~ Cal Thomas
"If the Framers of the Constitution were somehow to come back, Ron Paul is one of possibly only three people in Congress that they’d even talk to." ~ Walter Williams, Economist and regular fill-in for Rush Limbaugh
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." ~ Ronald Reagan
WHAT I THINK....HEATH CALVERT
I'd been walking around sharing the phrase "fire it up" for about three weeks, borrowing glittery talking points about the exciting race between the first possible female and the first possible African-American president, but I still felt like I didn't understand what changes these candidates were positing other than a replacement nameplate on the oval office desk. If you'd told me at the start of this presidential primary that I'd take off work and roadtrip to New Hampshire and South Carolina for the campaign of a pro-life republican from Texas, I'd have probably jump kicked you in the chest. In his defense, he's from Pittsburgh.
Who is this man, and how did I find him since you can't find him anywhere in television or print? I was sweeping my bedroom passively watching the Republican debates, when, somewhere between Romney's "I'd double the size of Guantanamo" and Guiliani's 37th invocation of 9-11, a soft spoken man you'd only know from C-SPAN2 started talking about the Constitution. He continued stating that we had armed Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, that we've been bombing Iraq since the end of the 1st Persian Gulf War, to remember that the CIA had overthrown Iran in the fifties, and that if we had followed the aforementioned Constitution perhaps we wouldn't have gotten ourselves into so much "mischief." I blurted out something that sounded like "wrudafuk." What presidential candidate uses CIA and the word "mischief" in the same sentence? Then he offers to give Rudy Guiliani a reading list, and "blowback" becomes a familiar word to a lot more people than those who read Chalmers Johnson or the latest National Intelligence Estimates. I become a fan of Dr. Ron Paul.
I began internet researching in my obsessive fashion and eventually discovered some Ron Paul videos on YouTube from rallies around the country. He talked about things like eliminating the IRS, our history of meddling in foreign governments, dissolving the Federal Reserve, ending the war on drugs, and pardoning all non-violent drug offenders. I had no idea what he was talking about, and neither does America.
Ron Paul is a paradox. He is a ten-term Texas congressman who voted against the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, internet regulation, those acts last year that stripped Habeas Corpus and Posse Commitatis, plus this week's Democrat sponsored Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (a precursor to internet filtering and University monitoring by the Department of Homeland Security). Democrats shutdown when they see the letter "R" next to the word Texas, and Republicans can't say "he's not a republican" enough. He will quickly remind you that Republicans used to be the antiwar party, and in fact George Bush had been elected on a promise to stop policing the world. Republicans used to be the party of small government, fiscal responsibility, and sound money. Now sound money isn't a sexy topic, but those listening to Ron Paul are starting to wake up to the gravity of what threats can be brought by a steeply declining currency, ballooning debt, excessive militarism combined with over extension, and a government that seems more interested in collecting data on it's own citizenry and protecting corporate marketshare than preventing future attacks.
We can fundamentally change our idea of what our government should be, and return to constitutional principles. Ron Paul's position is that the government shouldn't coddle us from cradle to grave. Central bankers like the Federal Reserve, which isn't part of the federal government, shouldn't have the power to manipulate the worth of our currency and thus our way of life. His position is that we shouldn't police the world or unconstitutionally interfere through bureaucracies like the CIA.
Only Congress has the power to declare war. Plus, we can't afford it anyway. We don't need the IRS harassing American citizens and taking our hard earned money and sending it out for destinations unknown. In fact, let's eliminate it. We'll pay for it by bringing home our soldiers from around the world, saving over a trillion dollars. While you're giving us our taxed dollars back, we'd also like you to return those civil liberties you've been whittling away at so you can give lucrative contracts to the homeland security/military industrial sector company you're going to quit the government to start, run, or lobby for.
Much is said about the national constituency of Ron Paul, more often than not describing them as "young 9-11 truthers," or "hillbilly Libertarian whackos," but the campaign that Ron Paul has built is a revolution, and it is growing. Ron Paul, despite being ignored by mainstream press, trounced republican opponents with over 18 million in grassroots fundraising last quarter alone. Rudy Guiliani could drop out after coming in third in Florida. Mike Huckabee doesn't have the funds to finish.
John McCain, despite a voting record similar to Clinton, will most likely lead the delegate count with Romney trailing close behind. What will be the interesting story is Ron Paul staying in the race (he leads in fundraising, he also leads in contributions from active military personnel), bringing a significant enough number of delegates to the convention to possibly decide who becomes nominee. After canvassing in New Hampshire and South Carolina, I'll tell you that most people are undecided and will vote for whomever the tv tells them to. Ask Ron Paul supporters and they'll tell you that Ron Paul's success may not be seen by him gaining the most votes in this election, but his ability to positively influence the Republican party's platform now and in the future.
Doctor Paul is indeed curing apathy. In fact, listening to him speak, at times, can be like receiving a medical diagnosis. I had never been active in the political process. Nor had most the people I'd met for that matter. They were all just curious to hear this man with so many seemingly common sense ideas that the establishment branded radical. What's so radical about our Constitution? The Constitution was written to restrict the government, not the people. Give me a choice between three lawyers and an ex-Air Force flight surgeon that's delivered four thousand babies. I'll take the doctor anyday.
Who is this man, and how did I find him since you can't find him anywhere in television or print? I was sweeping my bedroom passively watching the Republican debates, when, somewhere between Romney's "I'd double the size of Guantanamo" and Guiliani's 37th invocation of 9-11, a soft spoken man you'd only know from C-SPAN2 started talking about the Constitution. He continued stating that we had armed Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, that we've been bombing Iraq since the end of the 1st Persian Gulf War, to remember that the CIA had overthrown Iran in the fifties, and that if we had followed the aforementioned Constitution perhaps we wouldn't have gotten ourselves into so much "mischief." I blurted out something that sounded like "wrudafuk." What presidential candidate uses CIA and the word "mischief" in the same sentence? Then he offers to give Rudy Guiliani a reading list, and "blowback" becomes a familiar word to a lot more people than those who read Chalmers Johnson or the latest National Intelligence Estimates. I become a fan of Dr. Ron Paul.
I began internet researching in my obsessive fashion and eventually discovered some Ron Paul videos on YouTube from rallies around the country. He talked about things like eliminating the IRS, our history of meddling in foreign governments, dissolving the Federal Reserve, ending the war on drugs, and pardoning all non-violent drug offenders. I had no idea what he was talking about, and neither does America.
Ron Paul is a paradox. He is a ten-term Texas congressman who voted against the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, internet regulation, those acts last year that stripped Habeas Corpus and Posse Commitatis, plus this week's Democrat sponsored Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (a precursor to internet filtering and University monitoring by the Department of Homeland Security). Democrats shutdown when they see the letter "R" next to the word Texas, and Republicans can't say "he's not a republican" enough. He will quickly remind you that Republicans used to be the antiwar party, and in fact George Bush had been elected on a promise to stop policing the world. Republicans used to be the party of small government, fiscal responsibility, and sound money. Now sound money isn't a sexy topic, but those listening to Ron Paul are starting to wake up to the gravity of what threats can be brought by a steeply declining currency, ballooning debt, excessive militarism combined with over extension, and a government that seems more interested in collecting data on it's own citizenry and protecting corporate marketshare than preventing future attacks.
We can fundamentally change our idea of what our government should be, and return to constitutional principles. Ron Paul's position is that the government shouldn't coddle us from cradle to grave. Central bankers like the Federal Reserve, which isn't part of the federal government, shouldn't have the power to manipulate the worth of our currency and thus our way of life. His position is that we shouldn't police the world or unconstitutionally interfere through bureaucracies like the CIA.
Only Congress has the power to declare war. Plus, we can't afford it anyway. We don't need the IRS harassing American citizens and taking our hard earned money and sending it out for destinations unknown. In fact, let's eliminate it. We'll pay for it by bringing home our soldiers from around the world, saving over a trillion dollars. While you're giving us our taxed dollars back, we'd also like you to return those civil liberties you've been whittling away at so you can give lucrative contracts to the homeland security/military industrial sector company you're going to quit the government to start, run, or lobby for.
Much is said about the national constituency of Ron Paul, more often than not describing them as "young 9-11 truthers," or "hillbilly Libertarian whackos," but the campaign that Ron Paul has built is a revolution, and it is growing. Ron Paul, despite being ignored by mainstream press, trounced republican opponents with over 18 million in grassroots fundraising last quarter alone. Rudy Guiliani could drop out after coming in third in Florida. Mike Huckabee doesn't have the funds to finish.
John McCain, despite a voting record similar to Clinton, will most likely lead the delegate count with Romney trailing close behind. What will be the interesting story is Ron Paul staying in the race (he leads in fundraising, he also leads in contributions from active military personnel), bringing a significant enough number of delegates to the convention to possibly decide who becomes nominee. After canvassing in New Hampshire and South Carolina, I'll tell you that most people are undecided and will vote for whomever the tv tells them to. Ask Ron Paul supporters and they'll tell you that Ron Paul's success may not be seen by him gaining the most votes in this election, but his ability to positively influence the Republican party's platform now and in the future.
Doctor Paul is indeed curing apathy. In fact, listening to him speak, at times, can be like receiving a medical diagnosis. I had never been active in the political process. Nor had most the people I'd met for that matter. They were all just curious to hear this man with so many seemingly common sense ideas that the establishment branded radical. What's so radical about our Constitution? The Constitution was written to restrict the government, not the people. Give me a choice between three lawyers and an ex-Air Force flight surgeon that's delivered four thousand babies. I'll take the doctor anyday.
Tuesday
WHAT I THINK....PASTOR CHUCK BALDWIN
When Glenn Beck interviewed Congressman Ron Paul a few weeks ago, he said that he had received death threats from people purporting to be Ron Paul supporters. I have heard other journalists make similar accusations against Congressman Paul's supporters. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether any of this is true or not. And neither does anyone else.
My own experience has been that Congressman Paul's supporters have always demonstrated grace, patience, and courtesy. I have met and worked alongside Ron Paul supporters in at least four states, and I have never personally witnessed any of the anger and bitterness of which they are accused.
Not that Ron Paul's supporters do not have reason to be angry. They most certainly do. In fact, all of us should be angry.
Ron Paul's supporters have been subjected to the most overt and outlandish brand of humiliation and censorship ever seen in modern politics. The cable news Republican Presidential debates have been jokes. For every one question (and usually a stupid, irrelevant question at that) asked of Dr. Paul, the other participants will get three or four. Maybe more. Even though Ron Paul has received more money, more votes, and more delegates than Rudy Giuliani, the press continues to ignore Mr. Paul while showering Giuliani with coverage.
In addition, Ron Paul's own party continues to treat him and his supporters as second-class citizens--or perhaps even as aliens from a different planet. They are subjected to insults of every type. Not to mention enduring every conceivable method to censure or remove Dr. Paul from the political process. He has been denied access to platforms, excluded from debates, removed from GOP Presidential lists, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
I say again: if anyone has a right to be angry, it is Ron Paul supporters. But perhaps the greater question is, Why are not all of us angry? No, I do not mean in a cruel or unkind way, but where is our outrage for what the ruling elite are doing to our country?
We should all be angry at the way politicians lie to us, deceive us, and manipulate us. We should all be angry at the way both major parties have completely ignored and trampled constitutional government.
Are we so gullible that we cannot see when a politician says one thing to one group of people and a totally opposite thing to another group of people? Are we so naïve that we cannot tell when a politician changes his beliefs simply in order to garner votes?
Come on folks, let's get real: do you really expect John McCain to abandon his efforts to grant amnesty to illegal aliens? Do you really expect Mitt Romney to be a champion for the unborn? Do you really expect Mike Huckabee to suddenly be the champion for limited government spending? Do you really expect Rudy Giuliani to keep his pants zipped?
Have the American people become so numbed to truth and reality that we cannot distinguish the genuine from the phony--even when it stands right in front of us? Perhaps so. However, if the American people had any of the character and resolve of our forebears, we would be steaming mad about what our political and business leaders have done to our country.
Yes, we should be angry at the way our government has repeatedly lied to us about the economy, about sending our jobs and manufacturing industries overseas, about Iraq, and about EVERYTHING! Yes, dear friends, they lie to us about everything. It has gotten to the point that, frankly, I believe NOTHING the government tells us. They have proven themselves to be totally disingenuous and downright duplicitous. And, frankly, I'm angry about it.
In addition, I can even understand whatever anger and exasperation Ron Paul's supporters feel regarding my fellow evangelical believers. Today's Christians--and especially our pastors--have become little more than toadies for the establishment elite. They apparently have never read our U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or Bill of Rights. They are seemingly oblivious to our great American history and heritage. They seem to lack the most elementary understanding of even the most basic American principles.
For example, it makes absolutely no sense that Christian pastors would embrace the sudden pro-life candidacy of Mitt Romney and reject the proven, twenty-year pro-life record of Ron Paul. It makes no sense that evangelical Christians would embrace the pro-illegal amnesty, pro-McCain/Feingold, pro-No-Child-Left-Behind, pro-gun control John McCain and reject the proven, twenty-year no-amnesty, pro-freedom, anti-No-Child-Left-Behind, pro-Second Amendment record of Ron Paul. It makes absolutely no sense that Christians would fall for Mr. Big Government himself, Mike Huckabee, and reject the champion of limited government, Ron Paul.
Beyond that, how is it that pastors and evangelicals cannot see through the GOP's complicity in helping to establish a Luciferian New World Order? How can they be so blind and dumb regarding the global machinations of the Council on Foreign Relations? How can they not understand and reject the philosophy emanating from the Trilateral Commission and Bilderburgers?
Ask the average pastor and Christian about the CFR, the Trilateralists, or the Bilderburgers and they just stare into space. They are absolutely clueless. Ask them about the burgeoning NAFTA superhighway, North American Union, or Amero and they look stupefied. Again, they are absolutely clueless. And, yes, I am angry about it. I am saddened and angered at the lack of knowledge, perception, and discernment demonstrated by my Christian brethren.
I believe with all my heart that if the pastors and Christian people of America would come off their high horse and start supporting the principles of liberty, the U.S. Constitution, and limited government, not only would there be a rebirth of freedom in America, there would be a spiritual revival as well.
As it is, freedom-loving people cannot see past the ignorance, elitism, and partisan phoniness of modern Christians in order that they might see Christ. The Scripture plainly says, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (II Corinthians 3:17)
When America's Colonial preachers and Christian people fought for liberty and independence, God gave us two Great Awakenings. I believe another Great Revival would come to America, if our Christians and pastors would stand on their hind legs and once again fight for liberty and independence. And, yes, I am also angry that they will not do that either.
My own experience has been that Congressman Paul's supporters have always demonstrated grace, patience, and courtesy. I have met and worked alongside Ron Paul supporters in at least four states, and I have never personally witnessed any of the anger and bitterness of which they are accused.
Not that Ron Paul's supporters do not have reason to be angry. They most certainly do. In fact, all of us should be angry.
Ron Paul's supporters have been subjected to the most overt and outlandish brand of humiliation and censorship ever seen in modern politics. The cable news Republican Presidential debates have been jokes. For every one question (and usually a stupid, irrelevant question at that) asked of Dr. Paul, the other participants will get three or four. Maybe more. Even though Ron Paul has received more money, more votes, and more delegates than Rudy Giuliani, the press continues to ignore Mr. Paul while showering Giuliani with coverage.
In addition, Ron Paul's own party continues to treat him and his supporters as second-class citizens--or perhaps even as aliens from a different planet. They are subjected to insults of every type. Not to mention enduring every conceivable method to censure or remove Dr. Paul from the political process. He has been denied access to platforms, excluded from debates, removed from GOP Presidential lists, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
I say again: if anyone has a right to be angry, it is Ron Paul supporters. But perhaps the greater question is, Why are not all of us angry? No, I do not mean in a cruel or unkind way, but where is our outrage for what the ruling elite are doing to our country?
We should all be angry at the way politicians lie to us, deceive us, and manipulate us. We should all be angry at the way both major parties have completely ignored and trampled constitutional government.
Are we so gullible that we cannot see when a politician says one thing to one group of people and a totally opposite thing to another group of people? Are we so naïve that we cannot tell when a politician changes his beliefs simply in order to garner votes?
Come on folks, let's get real: do you really expect John McCain to abandon his efforts to grant amnesty to illegal aliens? Do you really expect Mitt Romney to be a champion for the unborn? Do you really expect Mike Huckabee to suddenly be the champion for limited government spending? Do you really expect Rudy Giuliani to keep his pants zipped?
Have the American people become so numbed to truth and reality that we cannot distinguish the genuine from the phony--even when it stands right in front of us? Perhaps so. However, if the American people had any of the character and resolve of our forebears, we would be steaming mad about what our political and business leaders have done to our country.
Yes, we should be angry at the way our government has repeatedly lied to us about the economy, about sending our jobs and manufacturing industries overseas, about Iraq, and about EVERYTHING! Yes, dear friends, they lie to us about everything. It has gotten to the point that, frankly, I believe NOTHING the government tells us. They have proven themselves to be totally disingenuous and downright duplicitous. And, frankly, I'm angry about it.
In addition, I can even understand whatever anger and exasperation Ron Paul's supporters feel regarding my fellow evangelical believers. Today's Christians--and especially our pastors--have become little more than toadies for the establishment elite. They apparently have never read our U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or Bill of Rights. They are seemingly oblivious to our great American history and heritage. They seem to lack the most elementary understanding of even the most basic American principles.
For example, it makes absolutely no sense that Christian pastors would embrace the sudden pro-life candidacy of Mitt Romney and reject the proven, twenty-year pro-life record of Ron Paul. It makes no sense that evangelical Christians would embrace the pro-illegal amnesty, pro-McCain/Feingold, pro-No-Child-Left-Behind, pro-gun control John McCain and reject the proven, twenty-year no-amnesty, pro-freedom, anti-No-Child-Left-Behind, pro-Second Amendment record of Ron Paul. It makes absolutely no sense that Christians would fall for Mr. Big Government himself, Mike Huckabee, and reject the champion of limited government, Ron Paul.
Beyond that, how is it that pastors and evangelicals cannot see through the GOP's complicity in helping to establish a Luciferian New World Order? How can they be so blind and dumb regarding the global machinations of the Council on Foreign Relations? How can they not understand and reject the philosophy emanating from the Trilateral Commission and Bilderburgers?
Ask the average pastor and Christian about the CFR, the Trilateralists, or the Bilderburgers and they just stare into space. They are absolutely clueless. Ask them about the burgeoning NAFTA superhighway, North American Union, or Amero and they look stupefied. Again, they are absolutely clueless. And, yes, I am angry about it. I am saddened and angered at the lack of knowledge, perception, and discernment demonstrated by my Christian brethren.
I believe with all my heart that if the pastors and Christian people of America would come off their high horse and start supporting the principles of liberty, the U.S. Constitution, and limited government, not only would there be a rebirth of freedom in America, there would be a spiritual revival as well.
As it is, freedom-loving people cannot see past the ignorance, elitism, and partisan phoniness of modern Christians in order that they might see Christ. The Scripture plainly says, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (II Corinthians 3:17)
When America's Colonial preachers and Christian people fought for liberty and independence, God gave us two Great Awakenings. I believe another Great Revival would come to America, if our Christians and pastors would stand on their hind legs and once again fight for liberty and independence. And, yes, I am also angry that they will not do that either.
ECONOMIC STIMULUS CONCERNS
This past week in Washington there has been much talk about the economy. It seems by their actions the leadership and the Fed is finally willing to admit we have a problem, and we need to do something about the economic mess we are in. This is a good thing. However, they are still not being honest about the root cause of our impending crisis and want to deal only with symptoms, not the disease.
There are some positive aspects of the highly lauded economic stimulus package that has been negotiated. I am in favor of taxpayers getting some of their money back, however temporary tax cuts and one-time rebates will not “fix” the economy. What we desperately need right now is real deep significant tax cuts that are enabled by big spending cuts and reduction of government waste that is so rampant. Unfortunately, too many in Washington still believe we can spend our way into prosperity, which does not work and never has.
Countries build wealth through robust economic environments, in which jobs are created and businesses can operate at a profit and grow. When taxes bleed away profits and burdensome regulation hamstrings operations, our businesses and our jobs go overseas. The United States must foster a competitive business environment once again.
There are a few ideas out there for economic stimulus that I do support, such as making permanent President Bush’s tax cuts. I have also signed on as one of 49 original cosponsors of the Economic Growth Act of 2008 which will provide actual economic stimulus through private sector tax relief and job-creating business incentives. This plan features
• Full immediate expensing for major business asset investments
• Reducing the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% to be aligned with average rates in Europe
• Indexing the capital gains tax for inflation
• Cutting and simplifying the corporate capital gains rate
Enactment of these dramatic tax cuts will free up money so employers can start hiring again. I would like for the unemployed to have the satisfaction of having a job again so the standard of living of the American family will go up. And even more than a one-time miniscule rebate check, I want you to keep more of your own money in the first place.
Sending out checks and cutting interest rates yet again is merely a shot in the arm when in actuality, the economy needs major surgery. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to provide major tax relief to the American people.
There are some positive aspects of the highly lauded economic stimulus package that has been negotiated. I am in favor of taxpayers getting some of their money back, however temporary tax cuts and one-time rebates will not “fix” the economy. What we desperately need right now is real deep significant tax cuts that are enabled by big spending cuts and reduction of government waste that is so rampant. Unfortunately, too many in Washington still believe we can spend our way into prosperity, which does not work and never has.
Countries build wealth through robust economic environments, in which jobs are created and businesses can operate at a profit and grow. When taxes bleed away profits and burdensome regulation hamstrings operations, our businesses and our jobs go overseas. The United States must foster a competitive business environment once again.
There are a few ideas out there for economic stimulus that I do support, such as making permanent President Bush’s tax cuts. I have also signed on as one of 49 original cosponsors of the Economic Growth Act of 2008 which will provide actual economic stimulus through private sector tax relief and job-creating business incentives. This plan features
• Full immediate expensing for major business asset investments
• Reducing the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% to be aligned with average rates in Europe
• Indexing the capital gains tax for inflation
• Cutting and simplifying the corporate capital gains rate
Enactment of these dramatic tax cuts will free up money so employers can start hiring again. I would like for the unemployed to have the satisfaction of having a job again so the standard of living of the American family will go up. And even more than a one-time miniscule rebate check, I want you to keep more of your own money in the first place.
Sending out checks and cutting interest rates yet again is merely a shot in the arm when in actuality, the economy needs major surgery. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to provide major tax relief to the American people.
Monday
WHAT I THINK....MURRAY SABRIN
TWO HUNDRED years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, a Republican physician from Texas was chosen by the voters in his district to head to Congress in a special election. Of course, 1976 was a presidential year, and incumbent President Gerald Ford was actively working to shore up support from the Republican Party to earn the party's nomination for a new term.
So Ford called this freshman congressman into the Oval Office, congratulated him on his victory in the special election and then asked the young doctor for his support in the Republican presidential primary.
"I'm sorry, Mr. President," said the man in 1976, "but I cannot support you. I am backing Ronald Reagan."
That courageous man was Ron Paul, and now, 32 years later, he himself is seeking the Republican nomination for president of the United States. And the platform on which Paul is running would make Ronald Reagan proud, because it represents a return to the limited government principles that made the Republican Party great, and can make it successful again.
Paul calls himself a "champion of the Constitution." His record in Washington, where his votes against runaway federal government spending have earned him the nickname "Dr. No," shows that he is more an heir to the legacy of Reagan than any other candidate running for president.
Quite simply, Paul does not equivocate on the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. He forcefully rejected the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform package, which trampled on our political free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. He has been one of the most strident advocates of Americans' Second Amendment gun rights and a steadfast defender of the Fourth Amendment, voting against the depredations of the American people's privacy by the federal government.
Paul has also been the most vocal critic in Congress of the Federal Reserve's "legalized counterfeiting." Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the U.S. dollar has lost more than 90 percent of its purchasing power. And since 1971, when President Nixon ended the last link between the dollar and gold, the U.S. dollar has lost about 80 percent of its value.
To some, that may sound like complicated economic theory. But it's actually quite simple. When we live beyond our means as a nation, we must borrow money from others to make ends meet. When we can't borrow any more, and our government lacks the courage to cut spending, we have no choice but to just print more money.
Sooner or later, this causes the price of goods to increase, especially imports, and the middle class will be squeezed.
President Paul will not allow that to happen.
Paul served this country for five years in the Air Force during the Cold War. So he is strongly attuned to the need for a formidable national defense. That is why he voted in favor of invading Afghanistan in 2001, in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, and why he wants all terrorists brought to justice.
He will never compromise the integrity of America's borders, and has taken a hard line against illegal immigration, calling for an end to benefits for those who enter this country illegally.
Paul believes that if we continue to subsidize illegal immigration, we will invariably get more of it.
So if you miss the principles of Reagan that made the Republican Party so strong, and you believe that we need a president who will restore the federal government to its constitutional size, then Paul is the only choice.
He backed Reagan in 1976 because he foresaw the great legacy in advance – America prospers when government gets out of the way and allows the wealth and talents of the American people to flourish. Ron Paul is the only Republican who has recaptured that spirit, and that is why he is our best hope for president.
So Ford called this freshman congressman into the Oval Office, congratulated him on his victory in the special election and then asked the young doctor for his support in the Republican presidential primary.
"I'm sorry, Mr. President," said the man in 1976, "but I cannot support you. I am backing Ronald Reagan."
That courageous man was Ron Paul, and now, 32 years later, he himself is seeking the Republican nomination for president of the United States. And the platform on which Paul is running would make Ronald Reagan proud, because it represents a return to the limited government principles that made the Republican Party great, and can make it successful again.
Paul calls himself a "champion of the Constitution." His record in Washington, where his votes against runaway federal government spending have earned him the nickname "Dr. No," shows that he is more an heir to the legacy of Reagan than any other candidate running for president.
Quite simply, Paul does not equivocate on the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. He forcefully rejected the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform package, which trampled on our political free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. He has been one of the most strident advocates of Americans' Second Amendment gun rights and a steadfast defender of the Fourth Amendment, voting against the depredations of the American people's privacy by the federal government.
Paul has also been the most vocal critic in Congress of the Federal Reserve's "legalized counterfeiting." Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the U.S. dollar has lost more than 90 percent of its purchasing power. And since 1971, when President Nixon ended the last link between the dollar and gold, the U.S. dollar has lost about 80 percent of its value.
To some, that may sound like complicated economic theory. But it's actually quite simple. When we live beyond our means as a nation, we must borrow money from others to make ends meet. When we can't borrow any more, and our government lacks the courage to cut spending, we have no choice but to just print more money.
Sooner or later, this causes the price of goods to increase, especially imports, and the middle class will be squeezed.
President Paul will not allow that to happen.
Paul served this country for five years in the Air Force during the Cold War. So he is strongly attuned to the need for a formidable national defense. That is why he voted in favor of invading Afghanistan in 2001, in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, and why he wants all terrorists brought to justice.
He will never compromise the integrity of America's borders, and has taken a hard line against illegal immigration, calling for an end to benefits for those who enter this country illegally.
Paul believes that if we continue to subsidize illegal immigration, we will invariably get more of it.
So if you miss the principles of Reagan that made the Republican Party so strong, and you believe that we need a president who will restore the federal government to its constitutional size, then Paul is the only choice.
He backed Reagan in 1976 because he foresaw the great legacy in advance – America prospers when government gets out of the way and allows the wealth and talents of the American people to flourish. Ron Paul is the only Republican who has recaptured that spirit, and that is why he is our best hope for president.
OPEN LETTER TO SMALL BUSINESS
Small business owners everywhere should know that Ron Paul is by far the best candidate for president that you are likely to see in your lifetime.
I’ve voted for over 30 years, but in all that time I have never had the opportunity to vote FOR a major-party candidate. I was always voting against someone, in a futile attempt to protect myself and my property. Eventually I realized that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and I had given up voting entirely for several elections.
Ron Paul’s candidacy has turned me from disgust and contempt of politicians and all things political to a political junkie who can’t stop reading or talking about the ideas, accomplishments, and courageous campaign of the greatest statesman of our time.
Ron Paul understands the vital role small businesses play in our national economy and civil society unlike any other politician. He is a genuine scholar who has studied and written about free-market economics for decades. He ran his own private medical practice for many years and delivered over 4,000 babies. He understands the day-to-day reality of running any small business and has first-hand knowledge of the destructive effects of federal government meddling in the free market.
Ron Paul’s proposals would revitalize the nation’s economy and particularly small businesses. Take a look at his Prescription for Prosperity, a comprehensive economic revitalization plan. The first item on the list, tax reform, should be enough to convince any small business owner.
Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS, eliminate the income tax, and replace it with nothing. Everyone can understand the appeal of having more money, but small business owners will appreciate the enormous burden this lifts from their shoulders more than most. All small business owners serve as unpaid accountants for a federal tax code whose complexity and inconsistency grows without limit. Nearly all of us hire expensive accountants and/or tax attorneys to assist in the preparation of the massive amounts of paper, the collection and sorting of endless bits of information, receipts, and forms that are required by law. All of us risk fines and the threat of prison for any mistake.
Take a minute to think how much simpler your business would be if you weren’t a slave to government accounting requirements. You no longer have to make minute classifications of ordinary expenses as tax-deductible, partially deductible, or non-deductible. You, not some desk-bound tax official, could decide how long a piece of capital equipment will be useful, and how to account for its depreciation so that you can save enough to replace it when it wears out.
You wouldn’t need a pension plan, and all the accounting and bonding and means testing and auditing that goes with it. You’d be free to offer savings plans to your employees as a way to attract and retain the best possible talent. Today’s 401(k), IRA, Section 125 and so on are all necessary to protect the employee’s earnings from taxation, at least for a little while. No income tax, no special plans required.
The same goes for other benefits and the elaborate accounting, forms, and regulations that go with them. You could offer whatever benefits you wish without incurring an enormous penalty in "compliance" for each choice.
Perhaps most importantly, you would no longer find yourself acting as tax collector for the federal government. This is the part of my job I hate the most. My business gets money from free market customers. They pay us for our services, because they determine that our help is more valuable to them than the fees we charge. But a huge chunk of those funds never reach me or my employees. The customer’s check goes to our bank, and several very large deductions go straight to the various governments.
Try this simple accounting experiment: You probably know your revenues for last year to the penny. Now add up the payments to government. Not just your personal taxes.
Add up all the money you sent to all governments, all the money you collected but never got to send to employees or contractors or suppliers. Monies you withheld for income, sales, Social Security, Medicare. Your "share" of the Social Security and Medicare taxes is a big one. Add in the sales taxes, telephone taxes, licensing fees, unemployment taxes, permit fees, the property taxes included in your lease. Be sure to include accounting fees you pay to do all the tax paperwork, legal advice you get in an attempt to stay in compliance with regulations, outsourced HR services required to comply with affirmative action and other mandates, bond fees and compliance testing you pay for in order to qualify for a pension plan, estate planning fees that are required to preserve some of your hard-earned wealth from the death tax. Add in the value of the time you and your back office spend trying to keep up with all the paperwork. Add in everything you can think of that you do because the government tells you to, not because it’s necessary to run your business.
Just the exercise of looking at your expenses in this light is educational. I expect you will find the total dismaying. Divide it by your revenues, and there is your average tax rate. Whatever it is, I’m quite confident it will be a lot higher than 35%.
I was depressed for months the first time I did this. I realized that I am a slave, working my tail off to send enormous sums to the government. I knew when I went into business that I would only get to keep a small fraction of revenues, but seeing just how much I was sending to governments that use the money to do things that horrify me was a real shocker.
Ron Paul would begin to end this madness. It might take him some time to dismantle the income tax, but his proposal to stop taxing tips has political appeal that will be very hard to deny, especially as the country sinks into what looks from my vantage point like a major recession. Collecting the tax on tips that are "estimated" by government tax collectors is another burden that will be lifted from small business owners.
Congressman Paul also wants to repeal the death tax, that particularly evil form of double taxation that routinely destroys small businesses and family farms when their owners die. He would end the tax on capital gains, on investment and savings, and on social security benefits. That last change, also certain to be very popular, would allow millions of senior citizens to re-enter the workforce part time, increasing their income rather than having benefits cut because they made "too much." Small businesses would benefit enormously from the newly available job seekers, who would expand the labor pool with talented, experienced people.
All small business owners know they must live within their means. We don’t have access to capital and stock markets to raise large sums. A single large loss can put us out of business forever. When our revenues drop, we must take immediate action.
Doctor Paul knows about living within his means. He returns part of his congressional office budget to the US Treasury every year. He has never voted for a tax hike, a pay raise, or taken a junket. He wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve, that fountain of phony money that enables endless government deficits. He wants to shrink the size of government, not by little nips here and there, but by a whopping 40% or more. His proposal to bring home all the troops, everywhere, could ultimately save a cool trillion dollars a year.
Ron Paul’s policies on trade are also particularly attractive to small businesses. If you’ve ever tried to import or export a product, you know how complex and expensive the so-called "free trade agreements" truly are. You may know about the absurd risks that you take by even buying imported goods after they reach US shores.
Abuses like the McNab case, where 4 businessmen were sentenced to long prison sentences for importing or buying and re-selling frozen lobster tails in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes. These atrocities are a clear warning to small business to stay away from the complex regulations of international trade. Only big business, with lots of lawyers and compliance specialists and close working relationships with the multitude of government agencies they must placate can afford the risks, and reap the profits, from international trade.
Ron Paul sees through the talk. He charges that free trade agreements are really managed trade, and that true free trade requires only low, uniform tariffs fairly applied. Imagine being able to expand the potential customers for your business to 300 million middle-class Chinese, or 800 million Europeans, a billion Indians, or hundreds of millions of Asians or South Americans.
The other candidates for president talk endlessly of all the things "they" will do to help American workers, American families, American consumers, and American children. You know all too well that most or all of that "help" will mean more taxes, more paperwork, more regulations, more opportunities for civil or even criminal liability for new laws you never heard about.
If unemployment benefits are extended, your unemployment taxes must go up. A "fair tax" means you must keep detailed records of every single transaction. It’s fair only to those who don’t have to collect it. If health care benefits have to be provided to everyone, as they do in Massachusetts thanks to a dreadful new law that Mitt Romney likes to take credit for, it falls to small business to do the work, pay the new bills, and fill out the endless forms. This is true even if your business is so small, as mine is, so that it doesn’t officially have to comply (yet), but we must still spend endless hours filing forms to prove its status.
The ten-term Congressman knows that it is not his job to run the economy, or our lives, or the world. He knows that hard-working men and women are the only means to true wealth and prosperity. Ron Paul also understands how well-intentioned but misguided efforts to help the handicapped, various races, sexual orientations, women, and other favored groups backfire. He knows that a small business hardly dares to offer employment to someone in a wheelchair, when the ADA then requires the employer to make unlimited accommodations, at your expense. He realizes that placing a "help wanted" advertisement risks the entire business, because should you choose not to hire an applicant from a favored group, you may find yourself defending your actions in court or in a regulatory "hearing," where your adversary has the limitless time and funds available only to government.
This Republican from Texas proposes to disband entire departments of the federal government. His ideas are radical, but timely and necessary, and contrast sharply with the platitudes and "more of the same" proposals of his rivals. He is fighting a battle of ideas against unarmed men.
Ron Paul understands the extraordinary limits to growth that burdensome government regulations place on small business, and how those regulations give competitive advantage to the military-industrial complex and other mega-firms. He also understands that small businesses create the majority of new jobs despite the best efforts of government to regulate us to death. The last time I checked, there were new regulations that would kick in when I had 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 20, and 25 employees. I’m sure I missed some, and that others have changed. Hiring every single new employee adds regulatory burdens, compliance costs, and disproportionate risks to small business. Remove even some of those obstacles and firms will grow, unemployment will shrink, and our economy will prosper.
There is much more about Ron Paul’s ideas that are vital to small business interests. Ending war and a trillion-dollar-year overseas empire will bring peace and prosperity back to our shores. Revamping our foreign policy from swaggering bully to neutral colossus will enable tourists and business people to become the face of America overseas, rather than American soldiers and bombs. Ron Paul will work to restore privacy and liberty to our nation, to allow free adults to make contracts agreeable to them, to get the federal government off our backs and out of our lives.
Dr. Paul understands the pernicious effects of inflation on society in general and business in particular. Our fraudulent money system creates bubbles and business cycles, sending false signals to business about faux prosperity and fake money in the hands of eager buyers. He wants to start a gradual return to sound money. This will particularly benefit small businesses, that don’t have access to the fiat money capital markets that give huge firms huge advantages. When we are able to calculate our investments, costs, and profits accurately without future inflation wrecking the results, our businesses will prosper. When we can borrow money at rates set by the free market instead of unaccountable academics and bureaucrats we will have regained an important signal of the savings and desires of consumers and investors.
There are those who say that Ron Paul can’t win. This should be of little concern to small business owners. Each of us has heard the endless stream of statistics, "90% of small businesses fail in 10 years," etc. Each of us knows what it is like to work without a net, against long odds. We know that having better ideas and being nimble and quick can be just as important as being well-established with deep pockets. We know that being the little guy, the long shot, can sometimes be a powerful
advantage. We know that new ideas and new strategies can work very well indeed even when most people think they are crazy.
Paul’s campaign has clearly threatened and angered those who control the media empires and huge businesses. They know he cannot be bought. Despite a near total media blackout, he has raised tens of millions of dollars, most from individual donors. I’ve never contributed to any major party candidate before, but I’m giving generously to Ron Paul’s campaign, and I urge all small business owners to do likewise. Better still, educate yourself about Dr. Paul, put some signs in your windows and literature on your counters. Talk to your customers about Ron Paul.
Spread the word.
Dr. Paul’s supporters are the most varied and motivated of any candidate. Google "Ron Paul Revolution." Check out the amazing videos on YouTube. I particularly like "Stop Dreaming" and "Land of the Free," (be sure to read the surprising comments by the creator) but there are literally thousands more. His supporters have organized a series of "money bombs," online events that raise millions of dollars, more money in a single day than any other candidate in history. Nearly all contributions are small, averaging about $100. They’ve even hired a blimp! All this is done without direction or control from the official campaign.
Small businesses can’t bundle contributions, hire lawyers, and buy favors the way megafirms can and do, but we can still pool our resources to support a man who will make a difference.
You may find that you don’t agree with every one of Ron Paul’s positions. I don’t. But he’s been in Congress over 20 years, and you can read his speeches, his bills, and his writings over that time. There is a remarkable consistency that comes from extensive study, deep thought, and unwavering commitment to principle. Even if you disagree on something, you can be absolutely confident that President Paul will obey and enforce the long-ignored limits placed on our government by the Constitution. "Dr. No" will begin the Herculean task of lifting federal boots off of American necks everywhere.
Ron Paul offers more than tax cuts and simplified regulations to small business owners. He offers the most precious commodity of all: time. Time presently spent working as unpaid accountant and regulatory enforcer for a government that has forgotten its limits. Time to grow your business, to spend with your family, to live your life.
Most importantly Ron Paul offers hope. Hope for a better future, in a world where small businesses can dream of becoming large ones without automatically enlarging government. Where hiring the 20th employee, or the 100th, doesn’t put you afoul of some regulation you’ve never heard of. A world where being successful doesn’t torture your conscience with the knowledge that your success is buying weapons used to kill innocents in far corners of the globe.
Successful small business owners know all too well that when opportunity presents itself it must be seized with both hands, for it may never come again. Ron Paul is literally a once-in-a-lifetime chance to change how America thinks and acts, both around the globe and right here at home. His proposals and influence will be enormously beneficial for small business in particular and for peace and prosperity in general. Please join me in supporting Ron Paul’s candidacy in any and every way you possibly can.
I’ve voted for over 30 years, but in all that time I have never had the opportunity to vote FOR a major-party candidate. I was always voting against someone, in a futile attempt to protect myself and my property. Eventually I realized that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and I had given up voting entirely for several elections.
Ron Paul’s candidacy has turned me from disgust and contempt of politicians and all things political to a political junkie who can’t stop reading or talking about the ideas, accomplishments, and courageous campaign of the greatest statesman of our time.
Ron Paul understands the vital role small businesses play in our national economy and civil society unlike any other politician. He is a genuine scholar who has studied and written about free-market economics for decades. He ran his own private medical practice for many years and delivered over 4,000 babies. He understands the day-to-day reality of running any small business and has first-hand knowledge of the destructive effects of federal government meddling in the free market.
Ron Paul’s proposals would revitalize the nation’s economy and particularly small businesses. Take a look at his Prescription for Prosperity, a comprehensive economic revitalization plan. The first item on the list, tax reform, should be enough to convince any small business owner.
Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS, eliminate the income tax, and replace it with nothing. Everyone can understand the appeal of having more money, but small business owners will appreciate the enormous burden this lifts from their shoulders more than most. All small business owners serve as unpaid accountants for a federal tax code whose complexity and inconsistency grows without limit. Nearly all of us hire expensive accountants and/or tax attorneys to assist in the preparation of the massive amounts of paper, the collection and sorting of endless bits of information, receipts, and forms that are required by law. All of us risk fines and the threat of prison for any mistake.
Take a minute to think how much simpler your business would be if you weren’t a slave to government accounting requirements. You no longer have to make minute classifications of ordinary expenses as tax-deductible, partially deductible, or non-deductible. You, not some desk-bound tax official, could decide how long a piece of capital equipment will be useful, and how to account for its depreciation so that you can save enough to replace it when it wears out.
You wouldn’t need a pension plan, and all the accounting and bonding and means testing and auditing that goes with it. You’d be free to offer savings plans to your employees as a way to attract and retain the best possible talent. Today’s 401(k), IRA, Section 125 and so on are all necessary to protect the employee’s earnings from taxation, at least for a little while. No income tax, no special plans required.
The same goes for other benefits and the elaborate accounting, forms, and regulations that go with them. You could offer whatever benefits you wish without incurring an enormous penalty in "compliance" for each choice.
Perhaps most importantly, you would no longer find yourself acting as tax collector for the federal government. This is the part of my job I hate the most. My business gets money from free market customers. They pay us for our services, because they determine that our help is more valuable to them than the fees we charge. But a huge chunk of those funds never reach me or my employees. The customer’s check goes to our bank, and several very large deductions go straight to the various governments.
Try this simple accounting experiment: You probably know your revenues for last year to the penny. Now add up the payments to government. Not just your personal taxes.
Add up all the money you sent to all governments, all the money you collected but never got to send to employees or contractors or suppliers. Monies you withheld for income, sales, Social Security, Medicare. Your "share" of the Social Security and Medicare taxes is a big one. Add in the sales taxes, telephone taxes, licensing fees, unemployment taxes, permit fees, the property taxes included in your lease. Be sure to include accounting fees you pay to do all the tax paperwork, legal advice you get in an attempt to stay in compliance with regulations, outsourced HR services required to comply with affirmative action and other mandates, bond fees and compliance testing you pay for in order to qualify for a pension plan, estate planning fees that are required to preserve some of your hard-earned wealth from the death tax. Add in the value of the time you and your back office spend trying to keep up with all the paperwork. Add in everything you can think of that you do because the government tells you to, not because it’s necessary to run your business.
Just the exercise of looking at your expenses in this light is educational. I expect you will find the total dismaying. Divide it by your revenues, and there is your average tax rate. Whatever it is, I’m quite confident it will be a lot higher than 35%.
I was depressed for months the first time I did this. I realized that I am a slave, working my tail off to send enormous sums to the government. I knew when I went into business that I would only get to keep a small fraction of revenues, but seeing just how much I was sending to governments that use the money to do things that horrify me was a real shocker.
Ron Paul would begin to end this madness. It might take him some time to dismantle the income tax, but his proposal to stop taxing tips has political appeal that will be very hard to deny, especially as the country sinks into what looks from my vantage point like a major recession. Collecting the tax on tips that are "estimated" by government tax collectors is another burden that will be lifted from small business owners.
Congressman Paul also wants to repeal the death tax, that particularly evil form of double taxation that routinely destroys small businesses and family farms when their owners die. He would end the tax on capital gains, on investment and savings, and on social security benefits. That last change, also certain to be very popular, would allow millions of senior citizens to re-enter the workforce part time, increasing their income rather than having benefits cut because they made "too much." Small businesses would benefit enormously from the newly available job seekers, who would expand the labor pool with talented, experienced people.
All small business owners know they must live within their means. We don’t have access to capital and stock markets to raise large sums. A single large loss can put us out of business forever. When our revenues drop, we must take immediate action.
Doctor Paul knows about living within his means. He returns part of his congressional office budget to the US Treasury every year. He has never voted for a tax hike, a pay raise, or taken a junket. He wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve, that fountain of phony money that enables endless government deficits. He wants to shrink the size of government, not by little nips here and there, but by a whopping 40% or more. His proposal to bring home all the troops, everywhere, could ultimately save a cool trillion dollars a year.
Ron Paul’s policies on trade are also particularly attractive to small businesses. If you’ve ever tried to import or export a product, you know how complex and expensive the so-called "free trade agreements" truly are. You may know about the absurd risks that you take by even buying imported goods after they reach US shores.
Abuses like the McNab case, where 4 businessmen were sentenced to long prison sentences for importing or buying and re-selling frozen lobster tails in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes. These atrocities are a clear warning to small business to stay away from the complex regulations of international trade. Only big business, with lots of lawyers and compliance specialists and close working relationships with the multitude of government agencies they must placate can afford the risks, and reap the profits, from international trade.
Ron Paul sees through the talk. He charges that free trade agreements are really managed trade, and that true free trade requires only low, uniform tariffs fairly applied. Imagine being able to expand the potential customers for your business to 300 million middle-class Chinese, or 800 million Europeans, a billion Indians, or hundreds of millions of Asians or South Americans.
The other candidates for president talk endlessly of all the things "they" will do to help American workers, American families, American consumers, and American children. You know all too well that most or all of that "help" will mean more taxes, more paperwork, more regulations, more opportunities for civil or even criminal liability for new laws you never heard about.
If unemployment benefits are extended, your unemployment taxes must go up. A "fair tax" means you must keep detailed records of every single transaction. It’s fair only to those who don’t have to collect it. If health care benefits have to be provided to everyone, as they do in Massachusetts thanks to a dreadful new law that Mitt Romney likes to take credit for, it falls to small business to do the work, pay the new bills, and fill out the endless forms. This is true even if your business is so small, as mine is, so that it doesn’t officially have to comply (yet), but we must still spend endless hours filing forms to prove its status.
The ten-term Congressman knows that it is not his job to run the economy, or our lives, or the world. He knows that hard-working men and women are the only means to true wealth and prosperity. Ron Paul also understands how well-intentioned but misguided efforts to help the handicapped, various races, sexual orientations, women, and other favored groups backfire. He knows that a small business hardly dares to offer employment to someone in a wheelchair, when the ADA then requires the employer to make unlimited accommodations, at your expense. He realizes that placing a "help wanted" advertisement risks the entire business, because should you choose not to hire an applicant from a favored group, you may find yourself defending your actions in court or in a regulatory "hearing," where your adversary has the limitless time and funds available only to government.
This Republican from Texas proposes to disband entire departments of the federal government. His ideas are radical, but timely and necessary, and contrast sharply with the platitudes and "more of the same" proposals of his rivals. He is fighting a battle of ideas against unarmed men.
Ron Paul understands the extraordinary limits to growth that burdensome government regulations place on small business, and how those regulations give competitive advantage to the military-industrial complex and other mega-firms. He also understands that small businesses create the majority of new jobs despite the best efforts of government to regulate us to death. The last time I checked, there were new regulations that would kick in when I had 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 20, and 25 employees. I’m sure I missed some, and that others have changed. Hiring every single new employee adds regulatory burdens, compliance costs, and disproportionate risks to small business. Remove even some of those obstacles and firms will grow, unemployment will shrink, and our economy will prosper.
There is much more about Ron Paul’s ideas that are vital to small business interests. Ending war and a trillion-dollar-year overseas empire will bring peace and prosperity back to our shores. Revamping our foreign policy from swaggering bully to neutral colossus will enable tourists and business people to become the face of America overseas, rather than American soldiers and bombs. Ron Paul will work to restore privacy and liberty to our nation, to allow free adults to make contracts agreeable to them, to get the federal government off our backs and out of our lives.
Dr. Paul understands the pernicious effects of inflation on society in general and business in particular. Our fraudulent money system creates bubbles and business cycles, sending false signals to business about faux prosperity and fake money in the hands of eager buyers. He wants to start a gradual return to sound money. This will particularly benefit small businesses, that don’t have access to the fiat money capital markets that give huge firms huge advantages. When we are able to calculate our investments, costs, and profits accurately without future inflation wrecking the results, our businesses will prosper. When we can borrow money at rates set by the free market instead of unaccountable academics and bureaucrats we will have regained an important signal of the savings and desires of consumers and investors.
There are those who say that Ron Paul can’t win. This should be of little concern to small business owners. Each of us has heard the endless stream of statistics, "90% of small businesses fail in 10 years," etc. Each of us knows what it is like to work without a net, against long odds. We know that having better ideas and being nimble and quick can be just as important as being well-established with deep pockets. We know that being the little guy, the long shot, can sometimes be a powerful
advantage. We know that new ideas and new strategies can work very well indeed even when most people think they are crazy.
Paul’s campaign has clearly threatened and angered those who control the media empires and huge businesses. They know he cannot be bought. Despite a near total media blackout, he has raised tens of millions of dollars, most from individual donors. I’ve never contributed to any major party candidate before, but I’m giving generously to Ron Paul’s campaign, and I urge all small business owners to do likewise. Better still, educate yourself about Dr. Paul, put some signs in your windows and literature on your counters. Talk to your customers about Ron Paul.
Spread the word.
Dr. Paul’s supporters are the most varied and motivated of any candidate. Google "Ron Paul Revolution." Check out the amazing videos on YouTube. I particularly like "Stop Dreaming" and "Land of the Free," (be sure to read the surprising comments by the creator) but there are literally thousands more. His supporters have organized a series of "money bombs," online events that raise millions of dollars, more money in a single day than any other candidate in history. Nearly all contributions are small, averaging about $100. They’ve even hired a blimp! All this is done without direction or control from the official campaign.
Small businesses can’t bundle contributions, hire lawyers, and buy favors the way megafirms can and do, but we can still pool our resources to support a man who will make a difference.
You may find that you don’t agree with every one of Ron Paul’s positions. I don’t. But he’s been in Congress over 20 years, and you can read his speeches, his bills, and his writings over that time. There is a remarkable consistency that comes from extensive study, deep thought, and unwavering commitment to principle. Even if you disagree on something, you can be absolutely confident that President Paul will obey and enforce the long-ignored limits placed on our government by the Constitution. "Dr. No" will begin the Herculean task of lifting federal boots off of American necks everywhere.
Ron Paul offers more than tax cuts and simplified regulations to small business owners. He offers the most precious commodity of all: time. Time presently spent working as unpaid accountant and regulatory enforcer for a government that has forgotten its limits. Time to grow your business, to spend with your family, to live your life.
Most importantly Ron Paul offers hope. Hope for a better future, in a world where small businesses can dream of becoming large ones without automatically enlarging government. Where hiring the 20th employee, or the 100th, doesn’t put you afoul of some regulation you’ve never heard of. A world where being successful doesn’t torture your conscience with the knowledge that your success is buying weapons used to kill innocents in far corners of the globe.
Successful small business owners know all too well that when opportunity presents itself it must be seized with both hands, for it may never come again. Ron Paul is literally a once-in-a-lifetime chance to change how America thinks and acts, both around the globe and right here at home. His proposals and influence will be enormously beneficial for small business in particular and for peace and prosperity in general. Please join me in supporting Ron Paul’s candidacy in any and every way you possibly can.
Thursday
CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO TERRORISM
It has been over 6 years since the atrocities of September 11 were committed and there are still some very basic measures that need to be taken to bring the perpetrators to justice and make America safer. I have proposed legislation to help with these efforts and will continue to fight in Congress for the safety and security of the American people.
My legislation entitled The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 (HR 3216) makes the surgical strike option available to the President in our mission to capture Bin Laden. Our military has been pursuing him without result for far too long now, and it is high time ALL constitutional tools were utilized in the hunt for this dangerous madman. As an American it sickens me to know that Bin Laden and top leaders of al Qaeda remain at large and thumbing their noses at us, while we unravel the sacred fabric of our constitution out of fear. It is Osama Bin Laden and the perpetrators of terrorist attacks that ought to be afraid of us, not the other way around. The answers are found in the Constitution. We should boldly root out the perpetrators and not let them get away with their crimes against us. As the home of the brave we should use Letters of Marque and Reprisal to bring Bin Laden to justice.
Also, we need to take serious steps to prevent terrorists from gaining easy access to targets on our soil. Quite alarmingly, even with the knowledge that the 19 terrorist hijackers entered our country legally, and that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia , student visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still far too easily obtained. In a baffling move President Bush struck a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in 2005 to allow 21,000 more Saudi young men into the US on student Visas. Of course, not all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorists, but I place a higher premium on the security of the American people than the convenience of citizens of hostile countries. We should not be making the goals of would-be terrorists easier to accomplish, but rather should be vigilant about defending against enemies at every turn. They should not be slipping through our doors so easily, using our immigration laws against us, and that is why I proposed the Terror Immigration Elimination Act (HR 3217) to toughen standards for VISAS from countries on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsoring countries in addition to Saudi Arabia . Just as you decide who to invite to a dinner party in your home, we should be in charge of who we allow in this country, without apology.
A lot has been done to fight the War on Terror and much of it has been misdirected, but there are some tools still needed and more progress to be made. My bills The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 and The Terror Immigration Elimination Act are logical steps in the right direction.
My legislation entitled The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 (HR 3216) makes the surgical strike option available to the President in our mission to capture Bin Laden. Our military has been pursuing him without result for far too long now, and it is high time ALL constitutional tools were utilized in the hunt for this dangerous madman. As an American it sickens me to know that Bin Laden and top leaders of al Qaeda remain at large and thumbing their noses at us, while we unravel the sacred fabric of our constitution out of fear. It is Osama Bin Laden and the perpetrators of terrorist attacks that ought to be afraid of us, not the other way around. The answers are found in the Constitution. We should boldly root out the perpetrators and not let them get away with their crimes against us. As the home of the brave we should use Letters of Marque and Reprisal to bring Bin Laden to justice.
Also, we need to take serious steps to prevent terrorists from gaining easy access to targets on our soil. Quite alarmingly, even with the knowledge that the 19 terrorist hijackers entered our country legally, and that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia , student visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still far too easily obtained. In a baffling move President Bush struck a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in 2005 to allow 21,000 more Saudi young men into the US on student Visas. Of course, not all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorists, but I place a higher premium on the security of the American people than the convenience of citizens of hostile countries. We should not be making the goals of would-be terrorists easier to accomplish, but rather should be vigilant about defending against enemies at every turn. They should not be slipping through our doors so easily, using our immigration laws against us, and that is why I proposed the Terror Immigration Elimination Act (HR 3217) to toughen standards for VISAS from countries on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsoring countries in addition to Saudi Arabia . Just as you decide who to invite to a dinner party in your home, we should be in charge of who we allow in this country, without apology.
A lot has been done to fight the War on Terror and much of it has been misdirected, but there are some tools still needed and more progress to be made. My bills The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 and The Terror Immigration Elimination Act are logical steps in the right direction.
WHAT I THINK....BERNARD CHAPIN
On Christmas morning my mother received a Ron Paul t-shirt from my brother-in-law. The gift made her giddy as she wants to display to her fellow Floridians her "Hope for America." Less enthusiastic was she about my presents though. After unwrapping the last one, she turned to me with disappointment and said, "Oh, I figured you’d get me a Paul shirt too." Later that day, she added to her booty on her own by purchasing another online. The new one was emblazoned with a quotation from Sinclair Lewis. Sadly, she rejected my advice to pick up a model proclaiming "Ron Paul Fo’ Shizzle."
Mentioning my mother here may sound like nepotism (or a desire for bigger and better gifts), but it is not. People like her showcase the importance and uniqueness of the Paul candidacy. What makes her story compelling is that she backed the Democratic Party habitually since 1964 which was the first year she was eligible to vote. Her moving off the leftist plantation and appreciation for Dr. Paul’s libertarian ethos indicates why this nation needs him…now, more than ever.
Granted, the last sentence contained loaded words. "Now more than ever" is a cliché forever compromised by Richard Nixon using it as a slogan during his 1972 reelection campaign. Yet the phrase is topical and draws attention to the statism endemic to both of our major political parties. Their embrace of steroidal government is undeniable and all-pervasive. Republican control of Congress did nothing to alter its course. Indeed, George W. Bush’s two terms in office actually made spending worse.
Stephen Slivinski explains the extent to which George W. Bush has ramped up the size of the federocracy. His "tenure, however, is a return to the Johnson and Carter philosophy of budgeting: across-the-board increases in everything. Inflation-adjusted defense spending is higher today ($440 billion) than it was at the high point of Reagan’s defense buildup ($399.6 billion) and outstrips Johnson’s largest Vietnam War defense budget (421.3 billion). And real non-defense spending has grown by a total of 25% during Bush’s presidency so far, compared to 15% over Clinton’s entire presidency."
In terms of the real annual growth rate for federal spending, Bush, at 4.9%, ranks ahead of all other recent presidents with the exception of Lyndon Baines Johnson.2 Calling the 43rd president a political conservative is a blatant non-sequitur. In the midst of this Grand Old Spending Party there has never been a more opportune moment for a man like Ron Paul to emerge as the champion of the American people.
Saturday’s second place showing in Nevada forced the mainstream media to take notice. To my great astonishment, I even heard Brit Hume on Fox News make a special reference to Dr. Paul’s positive result – although this, in no way mitigates the damage caused by the network’s perpetual condescending and shoddy coverage of him.
Some pointed out that it continued again that night in their post-primary coverage as well.
Regardless of his performance out west, to this commentator, he was always the only option.3 In fact, were it not for him I would skip going to the polls on Super Tuesday altogether. I first became aware of him (I am ashamed to admit) only after I began reading articles at LewRockwell.com back in 2000. He struck me then, as he does now, as a most rare form of Republican. He not only had the courage to express his views but also the courage to defend them. His honesty is what appealed most to my mother. She asked me if I thought he would run as a third-party candidate in the general election but then answered her own question by concluding, "Nah, if he says he won’t run then he won’t. He’d only say it if he meant it."
Dr. Paul’s response to Reason’s inquiry about the issues he’d advance on the campaign trail is one to commemorate. He told them, "Everything I’ve talked about for 20 years!" Quips like that illuminate why several conservative opinion outlets have dismissed him as being a fringe candidate and a cult figure. Candor, rectitude, and honor are traits unwelcome in an age of soundbites. Rather than hire pollsters to help him determine the nature of his beliefs, he simply states them.
The calumny which some conservatives have showered upon him indicates just how threatening his originalist and authentic positions are. He has to be demeaned because his economic views would mesmerize the Republican rank-and-file. The last thing a RINO needs is to be compared to someone who shares the vision of his constituents. Further, Dr. Paul has resisted Washington’s corruptive and sybaritic influence but the same could never be said of many of his colleagues.
Nowadays every politician in power for a cycle or two has a "flip-flopping" problem …but not Ron Paul. The doctor, as opposed to Hillary Clinton, is the only leader whose election promises us a politics of meaning. Barack Obama would make a wonderful motivational speaker, but his "audacity of hope" is nothing but an empty bag of vapor. Unlike Dr. Paul he refuses to go into specifics regarding the precise nature of his plans. Why would he? There is absolutely nothing exceptional about Obama in terms of ideology. He loves the federocracy and will continue to back policies anathema to conservatives should he find himself in the White House. His claim of being a uniter is spurious, but if Dr. Paul made the same boast he would be entirely correct. A bevy of leftists now support him, and they have made their reasons for doing so known.
If his campaign causes the far left to internalize the truth of Thomas Jefferson’s edict that "a government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have" then his run will have done America incalculable good. All of us benefit when the ranks of those who regard government as being an über-charity are depleted. Ron Paul supporters understand that enlarging the state diminishes the liberties of the people. The brighter all of our collective prospects will be when more leftists accept this eventuality.
The cancerous growth of the Leviathan has reached stage four. Its metastasizing force has contaminated every area of our culture and public square. Our bureaucracies already reflexively disseminate politically correct views and enforce them whenever possible. It will not be long before our thoughts are habitually tested for criminal content by the judiciary – witness the Democratic Party’s ongoing support for hate crimes legislation.
Left or right, if you care about the country’s future and think liberty is not a pejorative then Ron Paul is the candidate for you. A vote for him is a vote America. He embodies what we once were and what we should always be. Support him in this race and in any race he runs in the future? Fo’ shizzle, my friends, fo’ shizzle.
Mentioning my mother here may sound like nepotism (or a desire for bigger and better gifts), but it is not. People like her showcase the importance and uniqueness of the Paul candidacy. What makes her story compelling is that she backed the Democratic Party habitually since 1964 which was the first year she was eligible to vote. Her moving off the leftist plantation and appreciation for Dr. Paul’s libertarian ethos indicates why this nation needs him…now, more than ever.
Granted, the last sentence contained loaded words. "Now more than ever" is a cliché forever compromised by Richard Nixon using it as a slogan during his 1972 reelection campaign. Yet the phrase is topical and draws attention to the statism endemic to both of our major political parties. Their embrace of steroidal government is undeniable and all-pervasive. Republican control of Congress did nothing to alter its course. Indeed, George W. Bush’s two terms in office actually made spending worse.
Stephen Slivinski explains the extent to which George W. Bush has ramped up the size of the federocracy. His "tenure, however, is a return to the Johnson and Carter philosophy of budgeting: across-the-board increases in everything. Inflation-adjusted defense spending is higher today ($440 billion) than it was at the high point of Reagan’s defense buildup ($399.6 billion) and outstrips Johnson’s largest Vietnam War defense budget (421.3 billion). And real non-defense spending has grown by a total of 25% during Bush’s presidency so far, compared to 15% over Clinton’s entire presidency."
In terms of the real annual growth rate for federal spending, Bush, at 4.9%, ranks ahead of all other recent presidents with the exception of Lyndon Baines Johnson.2 Calling the 43rd president a political conservative is a blatant non-sequitur. In the midst of this Grand Old Spending Party there has never been a more opportune moment for a man like Ron Paul to emerge as the champion of the American people.
Saturday’s second place showing in Nevada forced the mainstream media to take notice. To my great astonishment, I even heard Brit Hume on Fox News make a special reference to Dr. Paul’s positive result – although this, in no way mitigates the damage caused by the network’s perpetual condescending and shoddy coverage of him.
Some pointed out that it continued again that night in their post-primary coverage as well.
Regardless of his performance out west, to this commentator, he was always the only option.3 In fact, were it not for him I would skip going to the polls on Super Tuesday altogether. I first became aware of him (I am ashamed to admit) only after I began reading articles at LewRockwell.com back in 2000. He struck me then, as he does now, as a most rare form of Republican. He not only had the courage to express his views but also the courage to defend them. His honesty is what appealed most to my mother. She asked me if I thought he would run as a third-party candidate in the general election but then answered her own question by concluding, "Nah, if he says he won’t run then he won’t. He’d only say it if he meant it."
Dr. Paul’s response to Reason’s inquiry about the issues he’d advance on the campaign trail is one to commemorate. He told them, "Everything I’ve talked about for 20 years!" Quips like that illuminate why several conservative opinion outlets have dismissed him as being a fringe candidate and a cult figure. Candor, rectitude, and honor are traits unwelcome in an age of soundbites. Rather than hire pollsters to help him determine the nature of his beliefs, he simply states them.
The calumny which some conservatives have showered upon him indicates just how threatening his originalist and authentic positions are. He has to be demeaned because his economic views would mesmerize the Republican rank-and-file. The last thing a RINO needs is to be compared to someone who shares the vision of his constituents. Further, Dr. Paul has resisted Washington’s corruptive and sybaritic influence but the same could never be said of many of his colleagues.
Nowadays every politician in power for a cycle or two has a "flip-flopping" problem …but not Ron Paul. The doctor, as opposed to Hillary Clinton, is the only leader whose election promises us a politics of meaning. Barack Obama would make a wonderful motivational speaker, but his "audacity of hope" is nothing but an empty bag of vapor. Unlike Dr. Paul he refuses to go into specifics regarding the precise nature of his plans. Why would he? There is absolutely nothing exceptional about Obama in terms of ideology. He loves the federocracy and will continue to back policies anathema to conservatives should he find himself in the White House. His claim of being a uniter is spurious, but if Dr. Paul made the same boast he would be entirely correct. A bevy of leftists now support him, and they have made their reasons for doing so known.
If his campaign causes the far left to internalize the truth of Thomas Jefferson’s edict that "a government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have" then his run will have done America incalculable good. All of us benefit when the ranks of those who regard government as being an über-charity are depleted. Ron Paul supporters understand that enlarging the state diminishes the liberties of the people. The brighter all of our collective prospects will be when more leftists accept this eventuality.
The cancerous growth of the Leviathan has reached stage four. Its metastasizing force has contaminated every area of our culture and public square. Our bureaucracies already reflexively disseminate politically correct views and enforce them whenever possible. It will not be long before our thoughts are habitually tested for criminal content by the judiciary – witness the Democratic Party’s ongoing support for hate crimes legislation.
Left or right, if you care about the country’s future and think liberty is not a pejorative then Ron Paul is the candidate for you. A vote for him is a vote America. He embodies what we once were and what we should always be. Support him in this race and in any race he runs in the future? Fo’ shizzle, my friends, fo’ shizzle.
WHAT I THINK....DAVID HENDERSON
Sometimes, to evaluate what you have lost or what you have achieved, you need to mentally put yourself in a time machine. That is, go back mentally to some time in the past and ask yourself how you think the world will be in the future – that is, now. Then compare what you "expected" with what is. If you take the experiment seriously and don’t "cheat" by kidding yourself about your incredible foresight, the results can be informative. I did this with two things recently, the state of civil liberties in the United States and the discussion of foreign policy. Both were informative. I invite you to enter your own time machine and consider both.
First, take civil liberties. Wait! Let me rephrase that in case any politicians are reading this. I don’t really mean "take" civil liberties; I mean "consider civil liberties." Go in the wayback machine to September 10, 2001 and ask yourself the following:
1. Do you think that in 2008, the federal government will have nationalized airport security? Will federal government agents insist that even little toddlers take off their shoes before getting on an airplane? Will the federal government tell you that you can’t take a bottle of wine or a 12-ounce container of shampoo on board?
2. Do you think that officials high up in the federal government will justify a form of torture called waterboarding? Will high federal government officials argue in favor of suspending habeas corpus, one of our most ancient liberties and the cornerstone of the others? Will Congress actually pass a law suspending habeas corpus for cases that do not involve "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion," the only situations in which they are allowed to do so under Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution?
How did you answer? My guess is that most of you put a fairly low probability on these things happening. Yet all of them happened.
Consider them one by one:
1. In the fall of 2001, the federal government nationalized airport security, turning it over to a new government agency, the Transportation Security Administration. As anyone who has traveled lately knows, the TSA does force parents to take off even their toddlers’ shoes and does prohibit you from taking on board any container that holds more than three ounces of liquid.
2. The federal government now regards waterboarding, in which water is poured down a prisoner’s throat so that he thinks he’s going to drown, as a perfectly acceptable method for extracting information from prisoners. In 2001, President Bush signed an executive order giving himself the power to suspend habeas corpus for non-U.S. citizens. In 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, in which it gave the President the power to suspend habeas corpus for aliens. The U.S. Senate explicitly voted down, by 51–48, a provision to preserve habeas corpus. There is some controversy over whether it gives the government the power to suspend habeas corpus for U.S. citizens, as well.
That’s the bad news. Now to the (mainly) good news. Put yourself in a the wayback machine and ask yourself these questions:
1. Do you think that there will be a candidate for president who consistently speaks out against the destructive idiocy of government intervention in other countries’ affairs and who keeps his dignity when attacked by some fairly juvenile opponents?
Do you think that such a candidate will also oppose federal intervention in people’s lives that goes beyond what a strict reading of the U.S. Constitution allows? Do you think that such a candidate will also raise over $25 million in small contributions?
2. Do you think that this hypothetical candidate could be a 70+-year-old man who can generate enormous excitement among U.S. youth without pandering to them? Do you think that he’ll generate interest among these youth by talking about getting rid of the Federal Reserve Board? Do you think that this candidate can keep winning debates with his competitors, not just in your eyes, but in the eyes and ears of those who bother to vote online?
3. Do you think that this candidate will appear on the very-well-prepped Tim Russert’s "Meet the Press" and actually answer his questions without evasion? Will this cause Russert to jump from issue to issue quickly, which is what his guests usually try to do?
4. Do you think that this candidate will appear to be such a threat to the big-government consensus that even Fox News, until recently the only mainstream media voice in favor of smaller government (foreign policy aside), will try to marginalize him?
5. Do you think that, as a bonus, this candidate will take on Americans’ love affair with Abraham Lincoln, the man who suspended habeas corpus, prevented his political opponents from voting against him, and set the stage for the growth of a powerful central government? And, if he does, do you think he’ll score points by suggesting that there were other ways to end slavery besides getting into a war that killed over 600,000 Americans?
6. Will this candidate do well despite an incompetent campaign staff that forgets to tell voters that their candidate opposes an interventionist foreign policy?
My guess is that you put well below a 20-percent probability on any of these things happening. The one exception might be number four; more on that anon. Yet all of these did happen.
1. In the various debates and in interviews, Ron Paul has consistently attacked the idea that the U.S. government should stick its nose into other people’s business.
His first major challenge came in a May 15 debate, aired by Fox news.
Competitor Rudy Giuliani asked Ron Paul to take back his claim that the 9/11 terrorists attacked us because of our government’s foreign policy rather than because of our freedom. Ron Paul refused to back down and, instead, elaborated on his claim. Interestingly, Paul scored another victory that has gone unremarked:
After Paul backed up his claim by citing the CIA, and the other Republican candidates tried to pile on, Fox questioner Wendell Goler stopped them, saying, "I don’t think we’re going to solve this tonight, gentlemen." Think about that statement. That’s an amazing concession from Fox News, which, ever since 9/11, has pushed the idea that the terrorists hated us for our freedom and has never been open to the idea that we could get fewer such attacks by getting our government’s nose out of other countries’ business. After hearing one articulate man who won’t back down in the face of browbeating from the questioners and his fellow candidates, Goler is willing to concede that this is a tougher issue than Fox had said for the previous five-plus years.
And since that May 15 set-to, Paul has kept the same message, even using a chance to try to educate John McCain about the difference between advocacy of isolationism, which McCain accused him of, and advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy.
At the same time, Ron Paul has emphasized that the U.S. government needs to practice a relatively non-interventionist policy on its own citizens, restricting itself to the small list of enumerated powers given to it by the U.S. Constitution (here and here and here, to take three examples.)
Finally, with his strong showing in the fourth quarter of 2007, raising almost $20 million, and his continued showing this quarter, he has raised over $25 million.
2. Ron Paul has generated enormous excitement among the country’s youth. If you want an idea why, check this article in The New Republic’s blog by Eve Fairbanks, who was totally charmed by the manners, decency, passion, and knowledge of the young Ron Paul volunteers she met in Iowa. On a micro level, I see it at the local Ron Paul meetup in Monterey.
In Ron Paul’s speech at the end of the New Hampshire primary, he noted with glee that he had received loud cheers at the University of Southern California and the University of Michigan when he advocated abolishing the Federal Reserve Board.
And, of course, much to Sean Hannity’s dismay, Ron Paul keeps winning in the online polling (and here) after the Republican debates. In fact, his winning has become so common that most of the media either don’t report it or take the notices down very quickly when they realize that he has won yet again.
3. On December 23, 2007, Tim Russert interviewed Ron Paul on "Meet the Press." Russert’s typical strategy is to dig out quotes from the interviewee and try to make him squirm as he attempts to square these quotes with his current statements. That strategy works with the typical interviewee, typically a politician who shifts with the political winds. I’ve always wondered what would happen if a guest said, in response to a question calculated to embarrass, "Yes, I said that, and here’s why." On December 23, I found out. On the first issue, getting rid of the IRS, Russert’s strategy didn’t work. Paul agreed that yes, you can’t get rid of the $1-trillion-plus individual income tax without cutting spending. So Russert turned to foreign policy. He asked Paul what he would have the U.S. government do if North Korea invaded South Korea. Paul answered that he would not have the U.S. government do anything. Then Russert asked what the U.S. government should do if Iran invaded Israel. Paul answered that that’s like asking what should happen if Iran invades Mars. Paul pointed out that with 300 nuclear weapons, Israel was fully capable of defending itself. Russert’s rare excursion into winging it didn’t work and so he went back to digging up quotes.
Russert quoted a former Paul employee named Eric Dondero, who had said that Ron Paul’s first reaction on September 11, 2001 was to complain that this would lead to even bigger government. How would Ron Paul handle this dynamite, I asked myself. I think this was his finest moment in the whole interview. He admitted that he had said it and that he had been right: witness the USA PATRIOT Act and the other violations of civil liberties. Paul quoted Randolph Bourne’s famous line that "[w]ar is the health of the state." But, said, Paul, he had been too pessimistic. The traction he was getting by talking about getting our freedoms back made him realize, he said, that there’s still a strong pro-freedom movement in America.
Russert looked totally nonplussed. He couldn’t get Paul to evade, and Paul actually defended his keeping his head on 9/11, when most people about him were losing theirs. Russert seemed to want us to think that this person was heartless, not caring about 3,000 murder victims. But does anyone really think Ron Paul didn’t care about them? The same day that Ron Paul made his statement about the loss of freedom, President George W. Bush grinningly said that the 9/11 attacks gave us an "opportunity." Yet I don’t remember any reporter challenging him on that.
At one point (about 3:30 on the second segment), Russert literally jumped from questioning whether Paul would abolish the FBI, hardly giving him a chance to answer more than yes or no, to whether he would abolish government schools. Russert was clearly flustered. There were other issues where Russert scored points, the main one being Paul’s putting pork-barrel spending into bills for his district, but, by and large, Paul won.
4. On this one, dear reader, you may have predicted better than I. I had had hopes for the Fox News Channel as an advocate of smaller government, hopes somewhat justified by evidence. But their treatment of Ron Paul has been off the charts.
Chris Wallace has been absolutely vicious – at one point, after Paul had bested him, accusing Paul of taking his "marching orders from Al Qaeda." (Paul responded that "we should take our marching orders from our Constitution.") Carl Cameron, whom I think is one of the best reporters on TV (admittedly a low bar), was completely unclassy, raising the issue of electability and asking Ron Paul, "Do you have any, sir?" Again, Paul showed incredible class in answering with a little eye twinkle at first and then forcefully. And in that same debate, Brit Hume, the best, most-seasoned reporter on Fox, tried to persuade Paul and the TV audience that they had not just heard Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani strut their hawkishness when asked about the recent Navy response to the Iranian speedboats.
That was a definite low point for Hume.
Finally, there is the fact that, in its graphic of the Nevada primary results, Fox literally left out Ron Paul’s second-place showing, but showed the results for Romney, McCain, and Huckabee. This had to be a low point for Fox. Or, at least, one can hope that this is the low point.
5. A bonus in the "Meet the Press" debate was when Ron Paul stated that Abraham Lincoln should never have gone to war (about the 6:25 point). When Russert went off script and claimed, "We would still have slavery," Paul, in his best Reaganesque "There you go again" moment, said, "Oh, come on, Tim." Paul went on to point out that all the other countries that had abolished slavery in the 19th century did so peacefully.
When David Shuster on MSNBC gave him a chance to take back what he said, Paul refused. Shuster took the bait and showed the moment with Tim Russert. That way, people listening to Shuster’s claims first heard Paul say that it would have been nice not to get over 600,000 killed. It also gave Paul a chance to give the MSNBC audience a lesson about Lysander Spooner, the famous libertarian abolitionist. One of the results of this bonus is that many Americans are actually getting educated about U.S. history, after decades of getting the official Sovietized party line in the government schools.
6. Finally, the bad news amidst all the good news. In much of the literature that the Ron Paul campaign sends out and in many of the ads, you wouldn’t know that the person they advertise is the person I’ve talked about above. For instance, in an expensive multi-color mailing to San Francisco Republicans, a small group that Paul could actually win delegates from, the brochure does not even mention that Paul wants to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. Paul’s immigration ad for television advocates "No More Student VISA’s (sic) from Terrorist Nations." Who gets to define a terrorist nation? And, more important, even if such a nation is correctly identified, how does a peaceful person coming from such a nation threaten the United States? That ad is awfully collectivist.
Which makes Ron Paul’s accomplishment all the more impressive, the best one so far being his second-place showing in Nevada.
First, take civil liberties. Wait! Let me rephrase that in case any politicians are reading this. I don’t really mean "take" civil liberties; I mean "consider civil liberties." Go in the wayback machine to September 10, 2001 and ask yourself the following:
1. Do you think that in 2008, the federal government will have nationalized airport security? Will federal government agents insist that even little toddlers take off their shoes before getting on an airplane? Will the federal government tell you that you can’t take a bottle of wine or a 12-ounce container of shampoo on board?
2. Do you think that officials high up in the federal government will justify a form of torture called waterboarding? Will high federal government officials argue in favor of suspending habeas corpus, one of our most ancient liberties and the cornerstone of the others? Will Congress actually pass a law suspending habeas corpus for cases that do not involve "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion," the only situations in which they are allowed to do so under Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution?
How did you answer? My guess is that most of you put a fairly low probability on these things happening. Yet all of them happened.
Consider them one by one:
1. In the fall of 2001, the federal government nationalized airport security, turning it over to a new government agency, the Transportation Security Administration. As anyone who has traveled lately knows, the TSA does force parents to take off even their toddlers’ shoes and does prohibit you from taking on board any container that holds more than three ounces of liquid.
2. The federal government now regards waterboarding, in which water is poured down a prisoner’s throat so that he thinks he’s going to drown, as a perfectly acceptable method for extracting information from prisoners. In 2001, President Bush signed an executive order giving himself the power to suspend habeas corpus for non-U.S. citizens. In 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, in which it gave the President the power to suspend habeas corpus for aliens. The U.S. Senate explicitly voted down, by 51–48, a provision to preserve habeas corpus. There is some controversy over whether it gives the government the power to suspend habeas corpus for U.S. citizens, as well.
That’s the bad news. Now to the (mainly) good news. Put yourself in a the wayback machine and ask yourself these questions:
1. Do you think that there will be a candidate for president who consistently speaks out against the destructive idiocy of government intervention in other countries’ affairs and who keeps his dignity when attacked by some fairly juvenile opponents?
Do you think that such a candidate will also oppose federal intervention in people’s lives that goes beyond what a strict reading of the U.S. Constitution allows? Do you think that such a candidate will also raise over $25 million in small contributions?
2. Do you think that this hypothetical candidate could be a 70+-year-old man who can generate enormous excitement among U.S. youth without pandering to them? Do you think that he’ll generate interest among these youth by talking about getting rid of the Federal Reserve Board? Do you think that this candidate can keep winning debates with his competitors, not just in your eyes, but in the eyes and ears of those who bother to vote online?
3. Do you think that this candidate will appear on the very-well-prepped Tim Russert’s "Meet the Press" and actually answer his questions without evasion? Will this cause Russert to jump from issue to issue quickly, which is what his guests usually try to do?
4. Do you think that this candidate will appear to be such a threat to the big-government consensus that even Fox News, until recently the only mainstream media voice in favor of smaller government (foreign policy aside), will try to marginalize him?
5. Do you think that, as a bonus, this candidate will take on Americans’ love affair with Abraham Lincoln, the man who suspended habeas corpus, prevented his political opponents from voting against him, and set the stage for the growth of a powerful central government? And, if he does, do you think he’ll score points by suggesting that there were other ways to end slavery besides getting into a war that killed over 600,000 Americans?
6. Will this candidate do well despite an incompetent campaign staff that forgets to tell voters that their candidate opposes an interventionist foreign policy?
My guess is that you put well below a 20-percent probability on any of these things happening. The one exception might be number four; more on that anon. Yet all of these did happen.
1. In the various debates and in interviews, Ron Paul has consistently attacked the idea that the U.S. government should stick its nose into other people’s business.
His first major challenge came in a May 15 debate, aired by Fox news.
Competitor Rudy Giuliani asked Ron Paul to take back his claim that the 9/11 terrorists attacked us because of our government’s foreign policy rather than because of our freedom. Ron Paul refused to back down and, instead, elaborated on his claim. Interestingly, Paul scored another victory that has gone unremarked:
After Paul backed up his claim by citing the CIA, and the other Republican candidates tried to pile on, Fox questioner Wendell Goler stopped them, saying, "I don’t think we’re going to solve this tonight, gentlemen." Think about that statement. That’s an amazing concession from Fox News, which, ever since 9/11, has pushed the idea that the terrorists hated us for our freedom and has never been open to the idea that we could get fewer such attacks by getting our government’s nose out of other countries’ business. After hearing one articulate man who won’t back down in the face of browbeating from the questioners and his fellow candidates, Goler is willing to concede that this is a tougher issue than Fox had said for the previous five-plus years.
And since that May 15 set-to, Paul has kept the same message, even using a chance to try to educate John McCain about the difference between advocacy of isolationism, which McCain accused him of, and advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy.
At the same time, Ron Paul has emphasized that the U.S. government needs to practice a relatively non-interventionist policy on its own citizens, restricting itself to the small list of enumerated powers given to it by the U.S. Constitution (here and here and here, to take three examples.)
Finally, with his strong showing in the fourth quarter of 2007, raising almost $20 million, and his continued showing this quarter, he has raised over $25 million.
2. Ron Paul has generated enormous excitement among the country’s youth. If you want an idea why, check this article in The New Republic’s blog by Eve Fairbanks, who was totally charmed by the manners, decency, passion, and knowledge of the young Ron Paul volunteers she met in Iowa. On a micro level, I see it at the local Ron Paul meetup in Monterey.
In Ron Paul’s speech at the end of the New Hampshire primary, he noted with glee that he had received loud cheers at the University of Southern California and the University of Michigan when he advocated abolishing the Federal Reserve Board.
And, of course, much to Sean Hannity’s dismay, Ron Paul keeps winning in the online polling (and here) after the Republican debates. In fact, his winning has become so common that most of the media either don’t report it or take the notices down very quickly when they realize that he has won yet again.
3. On December 23, 2007, Tim Russert interviewed Ron Paul on "Meet the Press." Russert’s typical strategy is to dig out quotes from the interviewee and try to make him squirm as he attempts to square these quotes with his current statements. That strategy works with the typical interviewee, typically a politician who shifts with the political winds. I’ve always wondered what would happen if a guest said, in response to a question calculated to embarrass, "Yes, I said that, and here’s why." On December 23, I found out. On the first issue, getting rid of the IRS, Russert’s strategy didn’t work. Paul agreed that yes, you can’t get rid of the $1-trillion-plus individual income tax without cutting spending. So Russert turned to foreign policy. He asked Paul what he would have the U.S. government do if North Korea invaded South Korea. Paul answered that he would not have the U.S. government do anything. Then Russert asked what the U.S. government should do if Iran invaded Israel. Paul answered that that’s like asking what should happen if Iran invades Mars. Paul pointed out that with 300 nuclear weapons, Israel was fully capable of defending itself. Russert’s rare excursion into winging it didn’t work and so he went back to digging up quotes.
Russert quoted a former Paul employee named Eric Dondero, who had said that Ron Paul’s first reaction on September 11, 2001 was to complain that this would lead to even bigger government. How would Ron Paul handle this dynamite, I asked myself. I think this was his finest moment in the whole interview. He admitted that he had said it and that he had been right: witness the USA PATRIOT Act and the other violations of civil liberties. Paul quoted Randolph Bourne’s famous line that "[w]ar is the health of the state." But, said, Paul, he had been too pessimistic. The traction he was getting by talking about getting our freedoms back made him realize, he said, that there’s still a strong pro-freedom movement in America.
Russert looked totally nonplussed. He couldn’t get Paul to evade, and Paul actually defended his keeping his head on 9/11, when most people about him were losing theirs. Russert seemed to want us to think that this person was heartless, not caring about 3,000 murder victims. But does anyone really think Ron Paul didn’t care about them? The same day that Ron Paul made his statement about the loss of freedom, President George W. Bush grinningly said that the 9/11 attacks gave us an "opportunity." Yet I don’t remember any reporter challenging him on that.
At one point (about 3:30 on the second segment), Russert literally jumped from questioning whether Paul would abolish the FBI, hardly giving him a chance to answer more than yes or no, to whether he would abolish government schools. Russert was clearly flustered. There were other issues where Russert scored points, the main one being Paul’s putting pork-barrel spending into bills for his district, but, by and large, Paul won.
4. On this one, dear reader, you may have predicted better than I. I had had hopes for the Fox News Channel as an advocate of smaller government, hopes somewhat justified by evidence. But their treatment of Ron Paul has been off the charts.
Chris Wallace has been absolutely vicious – at one point, after Paul had bested him, accusing Paul of taking his "marching orders from Al Qaeda." (Paul responded that "we should take our marching orders from our Constitution.") Carl Cameron, whom I think is one of the best reporters on TV (admittedly a low bar), was completely unclassy, raising the issue of electability and asking Ron Paul, "Do you have any, sir?" Again, Paul showed incredible class in answering with a little eye twinkle at first and then forcefully. And in that same debate, Brit Hume, the best, most-seasoned reporter on Fox, tried to persuade Paul and the TV audience that they had not just heard Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani strut their hawkishness when asked about the recent Navy response to the Iranian speedboats.
That was a definite low point for Hume.
Finally, there is the fact that, in its graphic of the Nevada primary results, Fox literally left out Ron Paul’s second-place showing, but showed the results for Romney, McCain, and Huckabee. This had to be a low point for Fox. Or, at least, one can hope that this is the low point.
5. A bonus in the "Meet the Press" debate was when Ron Paul stated that Abraham Lincoln should never have gone to war (about the 6:25 point). When Russert went off script and claimed, "We would still have slavery," Paul, in his best Reaganesque "There you go again" moment, said, "Oh, come on, Tim." Paul went on to point out that all the other countries that had abolished slavery in the 19th century did so peacefully.
When David Shuster on MSNBC gave him a chance to take back what he said, Paul refused. Shuster took the bait and showed the moment with Tim Russert. That way, people listening to Shuster’s claims first heard Paul say that it would have been nice not to get over 600,000 killed. It also gave Paul a chance to give the MSNBC audience a lesson about Lysander Spooner, the famous libertarian abolitionist. One of the results of this bonus is that many Americans are actually getting educated about U.S. history, after decades of getting the official Sovietized party line in the government schools.
6. Finally, the bad news amidst all the good news. In much of the literature that the Ron Paul campaign sends out and in many of the ads, you wouldn’t know that the person they advertise is the person I’ve talked about above. For instance, in an expensive multi-color mailing to San Francisco Republicans, a small group that Paul could actually win delegates from, the brochure does not even mention that Paul wants to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. Paul’s immigration ad for television advocates "No More Student VISA’s (sic) from Terrorist Nations." Who gets to define a terrorist nation? And, more important, even if such a nation is correctly identified, how does a peaceful person coming from such a nation threaten the United States? That ad is awfully collectivist.
Which makes Ron Paul’s accomplishment all the more impressive, the best one so far being his second-place showing in Nevada.
NO TO MANDATORY IMMUNIZATION
Ron Paul's libertarian ideology is dramatically revealed when you get him started on topics such as the War on Drugs, the FDA and forced immunization that draw on his background in medicine. Paul, a ten-term member of Congress who's hoping to pick up the Republican nomination for president, feels strongly that the federal government, in most cases, shouldn't be telling Americans what they can and cannot put into their bodies.
"I don't think anything should be forced on us by the government, [and] immunization is one thing that we're pressured and forced into," he said. "The other thing they're doing right now is the government's doing this mental health testing of everybody in school and they're putting a lot of pressure, in a way forcing kids to be put on psychotropic drugs, which I think are very, very dangerous. So anything medical that is forced on us I think is bad."
What if a dangerous disease was spreading like wildfire? Would Paul cave and require immunization in such a dire situation?
"No, I wouldn't do it, because the person who doesn't take the shot is the one at risk..." he said. "A responsible parent is going to say, 'Yeah, I want my child to have that,' [but] when the government makes a mistake, they make it for everybody. You know, that's what worries me. They don't always come up with the perfect answer sometimes... and people have had some very, very serious reactions from these immunizations."
Just as Paul wants to limit what Americans are forced to put in their bodies, he also wants to restrict the federal government's dictates of what Americans are allowed to consume.
"I want the [federal] government to stay out of it," he said. "I don't think the federal government should be enforcing laws against the use of marijuana in states like California, where it's been legalized for medical use... I just think the states should regulate it."
Paul compared the War on Drugs to the long-ago repealed Eighteenth Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States.
"I think the prohibition of drugs and the War on Drugs has been every bit as detrimental as the prohibition of alcohol," he said. "We probably have more danger in our prescription drugs and more addiction from those drugs--there's a great deal of harm."
He added: "If we accept this notion that the federal government is going to dictate what we can put into our bodies, then it leads to the next step: that the government is going to regulate everything that is supposedly good for us. That's where they are. They have an FDA that won't allow somebody who's dying to use an experimental drug which might speed up the process of finding out which drugs are good and which drugs are bad and the federal government comes in and dictates that they want complete control over vitamins and nutritional products and I just think the whole principal of government telling us what we can take in or not take in is just a dangerous position to take... it's related to the drug industry because they'd like to control all of this."
Although he concedes that some regulation is prudent, the situation under a Paul Administration would be vastly different than where things stand today.
"[When] it comes down to... the use of drugs for kids and other things they have a right to regulate it. They regulate alcohol all the time, not very well but at least they can do it," he said. "[But] I don't think you need the federal government sending their policemen out to try to enforce a law that's virtually unenforceable."
Paul, who ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988, clearly has a strong desire for change, and has done surprisingly well in caucuses and primaries so far -- coming in second in Nevada, for instance. Still, most pundits do not think he'll get the nomination this time around, either. If that turns out to be the case, would he ever consider running for president again in the future?
"Well, I probably wouldn't want to run again, but I can't believe any time in my life I would not want to promote these views, because I'm so firmly convinced that it would be beneficial to all of us," he said.
"I don't think anything should be forced on us by the government, [and] immunization is one thing that we're pressured and forced into," he said. "The other thing they're doing right now is the government's doing this mental health testing of everybody in school and they're putting a lot of pressure, in a way forcing kids to be put on psychotropic drugs, which I think are very, very dangerous. So anything medical that is forced on us I think is bad."
What if a dangerous disease was spreading like wildfire? Would Paul cave and require immunization in such a dire situation?
"No, I wouldn't do it, because the person who doesn't take the shot is the one at risk..." he said. "A responsible parent is going to say, 'Yeah, I want my child to have that,' [but] when the government makes a mistake, they make it for everybody. You know, that's what worries me. They don't always come up with the perfect answer sometimes... and people have had some very, very serious reactions from these immunizations."
Just as Paul wants to limit what Americans are forced to put in their bodies, he also wants to restrict the federal government's dictates of what Americans are allowed to consume.
"I want the [federal] government to stay out of it," he said. "I don't think the federal government should be enforcing laws against the use of marijuana in states like California, where it's been legalized for medical use... I just think the states should regulate it."
Paul compared the War on Drugs to the long-ago repealed Eighteenth Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States.
"I think the prohibition of drugs and the War on Drugs has been every bit as detrimental as the prohibition of alcohol," he said. "We probably have more danger in our prescription drugs and more addiction from those drugs--there's a great deal of harm."
He added: "If we accept this notion that the federal government is going to dictate what we can put into our bodies, then it leads to the next step: that the government is going to regulate everything that is supposedly good for us. That's where they are. They have an FDA that won't allow somebody who's dying to use an experimental drug which might speed up the process of finding out which drugs are good and which drugs are bad and the federal government comes in and dictates that they want complete control over vitamins and nutritional products and I just think the whole principal of government telling us what we can take in or not take in is just a dangerous position to take... it's related to the drug industry because they'd like to control all of this."
Although he concedes that some regulation is prudent, the situation under a Paul Administration would be vastly different than where things stand today.
"[When] it comes down to... the use of drugs for kids and other things they have a right to regulate it. They regulate alcohol all the time, not very well but at least they can do it," he said. "[But] I don't think you need the federal government sending their policemen out to try to enforce a law that's virtually unenforceable."
Paul, who ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988, clearly has a strong desire for change, and has done surprisingly well in caucuses and primaries so far -- coming in second in Nevada, for instance. Still, most pundits do not think he'll get the nomination this time around, either. If that turns out to be the case, would he ever consider running for president again in the future?
"Well, I probably wouldn't want to run again, but I can't believe any time in my life I would not want to promote these views, because I'm so firmly convinced that it would be beneficial to all of us," he said.
OPEN LETTER TO EUROPEAN GREENS
The impact of US presidential elections goes well beyond American borders. The United States is not just the most powerful and wealthiest nation in the world; its political positioning on the most controversial issues strongly influences, if not drives, the rest of the world. In a time when the price of oil is as high as nearly US$ 100 per barrel and climate change is possibly regarded as the greatest challenge the international community is facing, people around the world should look closer at how the presidential candidates address energy and environmental issues. Such an approach would reveal that the world – leave aside the US – has a substantial interest in having Dr. Ron Paul as the next US President, for at least four good reasons.
First, on energy policy in general Ron Paul is possibly the only presidential candidate who does not slavishly follow the energy independence mantra. Energy independence is not just possible to achieve without dramatically impacting the Americans’ life, liberty, and property – as it would mean that cheaper sources of energy are not taken into consideration, and that people and industries are prevented from freely making contracts with foreign firms or individuals. The mere fact that America claims it will reduce its energy imports – assuming this is taken seriously abroad – will create among market participants the expectation that the US demand will decrease for political reasons. Now, since most oil & gas resources are owned or anyhow controlled by producing States, the feeling that America – the world’s largest consumer – will reduce consumption would probably lead to a renaissance of OPEC as a well-functioning cartel – which it has not been in the last 20 years. So, a serious effort to cut US hydrocarbon consumption would not only leave Americans worse off, but most probably might paradoxically push up oil prices and cause serious economic problems abroad.
Second, Dr. Paul has consistently opposed ethanol and other biofuel subsidies. The evidence is growing that not only are biofuels far more costly than conventional sources of power, but they are also energy-inefficient (that is, the amount of energy spent in the production of biofuels is higher than the amount of energy they release) and thus environment-unfriendly. Biofuel policy is just the latest name for agricultural subsidies, and as such it has serious consequences. Most notably, the surge in biofuel demand has caused a substantive growth in food prices, which is particularly impacting on the developing countries. Agriculture is addicted to subsidies, but this provides no justification for making it even harder for poor economies to grow. And, again, since America is the world’s leading country both in terms of subsidizing agriculture and biofuels, a reversal in US policies would probably change the world’s negative attitude in this respect, not to mention the revitalizing effect it might have on WTO negotiations to remove trade barriers in agriculture.
Third, an alleged reason to subsidize biofuels is that, according to some estimates that are increasingly becoming discredited, they would contribute to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. While this may be true under particular circumstances which do not hold as regards to US-grown biofuels, Dr. Paul’s platform on climate change is far more convincing than that of his Republican and Democrat opponents. Ron Paul calls for a fair assessment of science in the first place, while others apparently believe what they listen to at CNN is "the" voice of science. Congressman Ron Paul would not give up property rights and individual freedom in exchange for supposedly good weather one hundred years from now. This is most important in the international arena: the free market is particularly under siege in Europe. Under the flag of fighting global warming, a Soviet-style system of energy rationing has been set in motion. The EU is pressing other countries to follow its example, and other presidential candidates in the US might consider the option, which after all gives the government a tremendous power over the future of society and the economy as a whole, because energy is a fundamental input to all economic activity. This European system is unsustainable in the long run, but it can’t endure in the short run either unless other major economies embrace it. Dr. Paul’s election would be a sign of hope also to those Europeans who realize that the world might be in danger, but green socialism can hardly be a solution.
Last but not least, Ron Paul’s foreign policy proposals can significantly contribute to solving the current energy crisis as well as global warming. On the one hand, military campaigns in the Middle East are part of the reason why oil-producing countries resist economic integration. A more peaceful setting in the region might strengthen the case for free trade and easier access to resources for foreign companies, including US-based oil companies. This, in turn, would dramatically improve the rate of recovery for oil & gas and would increase the efforts in exploration and production, leading to a fall in the price of oil. On the other hand, more economic integration would also mean a faster technological change in developing countries, that are far less energy-efficient – hence more carbon-intensive – than the developed world, including the US.
To sum up, there are several important environmental reasons why the rest of the world has an interest in Dr. Paul’s victory. In fact, his policy proposals, if enacted, would make not just the US a more prosperous country, but also the world as a whole a better, cleaner, and safer place.
First, on energy policy in general Ron Paul is possibly the only presidential candidate who does not slavishly follow the energy independence mantra. Energy independence is not just possible to achieve without dramatically impacting the Americans’ life, liberty, and property – as it would mean that cheaper sources of energy are not taken into consideration, and that people and industries are prevented from freely making contracts with foreign firms or individuals. The mere fact that America claims it will reduce its energy imports – assuming this is taken seriously abroad – will create among market participants the expectation that the US demand will decrease for political reasons. Now, since most oil & gas resources are owned or anyhow controlled by producing States, the feeling that America – the world’s largest consumer – will reduce consumption would probably lead to a renaissance of OPEC as a well-functioning cartel – which it has not been in the last 20 years. So, a serious effort to cut US hydrocarbon consumption would not only leave Americans worse off, but most probably might paradoxically push up oil prices and cause serious economic problems abroad.
Second, Dr. Paul has consistently opposed ethanol and other biofuel subsidies. The evidence is growing that not only are biofuels far more costly than conventional sources of power, but they are also energy-inefficient (that is, the amount of energy spent in the production of biofuels is higher than the amount of energy they release) and thus environment-unfriendly. Biofuel policy is just the latest name for agricultural subsidies, and as such it has serious consequences. Most notably, the surge in biofuel demand has caused a substantive growth in food prices, which is particularly impacting on the developing countries. Agriculture is addicted to subsidies, but this provides no justification for making it even harder for poor economies to grow. And, again, since America is the world’s leading country both in terms of subsidizing agriculture and biofuels, a reversal in US policies would probably change the world’s negative attitude in this respect, not to mention the revitalizing effect it might have on WTO negotiations to remove trade barriers in agriculture.
Third, an alleged reason to subsidize biofuels is that, according to some estimates that are increasingly becoming discredited, they would contribute to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. While this may be true under particular circumstances which do not hold as regards to US-grown biofuels, Dr. Paul’s platform on climate change is far more convincing than that of his Republican and Democrat opponents. Ron Paul calls for a fair assessment of science in the first place, while others apparently believe what they listen to at CNN is "the" voice of science. Congressman Ron Paul would not give up property rights and individual freedom in exchange for supposedly good weather one hundred years from now. This is most important in the international arena: the free market is particularly under siege in Europe. Under the flag of fighting global warming, a Soviet-style system of energy rationing has been set in motion. The EU is pressing other countries to follow its example, and other presidential candidates in the US might consider the option, which after all gives the government a tremendous power over the future of society and the economy as a whole, because energy is a fundamental input to all economic activity. This European system is unsustainable in the long run, but it can’t endure in the short run either unless other major economies embrace it. Dr. Paul’s election would be a sign of hope also to those Europeans who realize that the world might be in danger, but green socialism can hardly be a solution.
Last but not least, Ron Paul’s foreign policy proposals can significantly contribute to solving the current energy crisis as well as global warming. On the one hand, military campaigns in the Middle East are part of the reason why oil-producing countries resist economic integration. A more peaceful setting in the region might strengthen the case for free trade and easier access to resources for foreign companies, including US-based oil companies. This, in turn, would dramatically improve the rate of recovery for oil & gas and would increase the efforts in exploration and production, leading to a fall in the price of oil. On the other hand, more economic integration would also mean a faster technological change in developing countries, that are far less energy-efficient – hence more carbon-intensive – than the developed world, including the US.
To sum up, there are several important environmental reasons why the rest of the world has an interest in Dr. Paul’s victory. In fact, his policy proposals, if enacted, would make not just the US a more prosperous country, but also the world as a whole a better, cleaner, and safer place.
Saturday
WHAT I THINK...ELIZABETH CAMERON
Policy positions aside, what follows are characteristics in a person that would serve us very, very well in a President.
1. He tells the truth.
It is not fun to hear that our country is going bankrupt, or that our government is out of control, or that we are losing our liberties at a dizzying rate. It is scary and upsetting. But if we are to regain the country that we like to think we live in, the truth must be heard. Dr. Paul discusses with great frankness the actual reasons for troublesome conditions we now face, and while this may be bitter medicine, it does point the way to reversing the spiral and regaining our footing as a peaceful, free, and prosperous nation.
2. He is unflappable.
When others are in an uproar, Congressman Paul demonstrates a remarkable level of equanimity. On the Tonight Show with Jay Leno (Jan 7th), for example, he discussed FOX’s shameless decision to exclude him from their "Republican debate" without the slightest hint of rancor or hostility; he even showed a sense of humor. When he has been scoffed at in debates, he has ignored the jeers and gone on to explain his positions in a mild and deliberate manner. This calm demeanor would be a great asset in dealing with the myriad clamorings that make their way into the Oval Office.
3. His story does not change with the political winds.
For many long years, Dr. Paul has been talking about the same crucial topics: sound money; honoring the Constitution; protecting life, liberty and property; friendly relations with other nations and entangling alliances with none; maintaining a strong national defense; honoring our veterans, etc. It doesn’t seem to matter where he goes or who is listening – the story remains the same. Wouldn’t it be nice to know that the President of the United States had an unswerving commitment to principles of freedom that you could depend upon, once he was in office?
4. He is polite.
If you notice how Dr. Paul behaves in debates, you will see that any annoyance he demonstrates is strictly on policy matters. No matter how much pressure he is under, he is unfailingly polite and respectful, and does not join the game of tossing out rude barbs to trip up or embarrass other candidates. Consider how important might be the simple fact of Presidential good manners in dealing with testy foreign nations.
5. He obeys his oath of office.
When Congressmen (and Presidents) take office, they take the following oath: I, loyal citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." In ten terms in Congress, Dr. Paul has an untarnished record of adhering to this oath. Who else can say that? Nobody. It is, sad to say, practically unheard of. And if we ever needed it in anybody, surely it is in the head of the Executive branch.
6. He is open about what he is doing.
An example of this can be found on Dr. Paul’s campaign website, where in prominent display are the totals, minute by minute, of money flowing into his coffers from campaign contributors. I’ve seen no other candidate do this. It is a small example, perhaps, but it is telling.
7. He is neither owned nor cowed by special interests.
In his years in the House of Representatives, Congressman Paul has proven beyond doubt that he cannot be bought. Lobbyists, I am told, don’t even bother trying to get in to see him, since they know that if government funding of their pet projects would be unconstitutional, they are wasting their time. The pressures on a President to bow to powerful interests are sure to be tremendous, and a man who can stand up to them is a very great man indeed.
8. He believes in the America of our Founders.
It has been a slow and painful awakening for some of us to realize that the America in which we now live is not the one our Founders gave us. Sadly, our peace, prosperity and freedom are all under assault. We still have a lot to be thankful for, there is no doubt of that, but we cannot afford to let our freedom keep slipping away, and I want the guy who remembers where we came from and wants to make good the original Revolution.
9. He is modest.
When Congressman Paul talks about his success, he attributes it to the popularity of the ideas he espouses. It is the ideas, not the man, that are carrying this movement, as he has repeatedly said. But the truth is that in the world today, it takes a giant of a man to carry this torch, and he, who is such a man, carries it with grace and modesty. This suggests to me that he cares more for the ideas and for the freedom of his countrymen than he does for his own ambition, and who wouldn’t want a President like that?
10. He addresses the issues that matter.
There is always political noise about something, but Dr. Paul cuts under the fray to get at what is causing situations to occur. This sort of approach lends itself to solutions. It is interesting to consider that under a Paul administration, the tide might be reversed, and we might actually regain some of our freedom and prosperity and peace.
11. He is courageous.
If we ever needed a brave man in office, it is now. The pressures that threaten freedom in our land are formidable, and a mere politician, I think, could not stem the tide. Only a statesman could do that, and in Dr. Paul, by the grace of God, we have such a man. Even he could not do it alone, though, and it is heart-warming to see the great numbers of people who are rising up to rally around this cause. This is a movement of historic proportions, and may give us the best chance we’ll ever have to restore the foundations of our Republic.
12. He is a nice person.
The President is the first and most public Ambassador of the United States of America. Dr. Paul shows in many ways that he would uphold this responsibility admirably. He demonstrates through example the tenets of his faith (like wanting to treat other nations the way we would like other nations to treat us); he demonstrates professionalism and honesty, scholarship and humor, compassion and integrity. By example alone, he would improve America’s standing in the world.
1. He tells the truth.
It is not fun to hear that our country is going bankrupt, or that our government is out of control, or that we are losing our liberties at a dizzying rate. It is scary and upsetting. But if we are to regain the country that we like to think we live in, the truth must be heard. Dr. Paul discusses with great frankness the actual reasons for troublesome conditions we now face, and while this may be bitter medicine, it does point the way to reversing the spiral and regaining our footing as a peaceful, free, and prosperous nation.
2. He is unflappable.
When others are in an uproar, Congressman Paul demonstrates a remarkable level of equanimity. On the Tonight Show with Jay Leno (Jan 7th), for example, he discussed FOX’s shameless decision to exclude him from their "Republican debate" without the slightest hint of rancor or hostility; he even showed a sense of humor. When he has been scoffed at in debates, he has ignored the jeers and gone on to explain his positions in a mild and deliberate manner. This calm demeanor would be a great asset in dealing with the myriad clamorings that make their way into the Oval Office.
3. His story does not change with the political winds.
For many long years, Dr. Paul has been talking about the same crucial topics: sound money; honoring the Constitution; protecting life, liberty and property; friendly relations with other nations and entangling alliances with none; maintaining a strong national defense; honoring our veterans, etc. It doesn’t seem to matter where he goes or who is listening – the story remains the same. Wouldn’t it be nice to know that the President of the United States had an unswerving commitment to principles of freedom that you could depend upon, once he was in office?
4. He is polite.
If you notice how Dr. Paul behaves in debates, you will see that any annoyance he demonstrates is strictly on policy matters. No matter how much pressure he is under, he is unfailingly polite and respectful, and does not join the game of tossing out rude barbs to trip up or embarrass other candidates. Consider how important might be the simple fact of Presidential good manners in dealing with testy foreign nations.
5. He obeys his oath of office.
When Congressmen (and Presidents) take office, they take the following oath: I, loyal citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." In ten terms in Congress, Dr. Paul has an untarnished record of adhering to this oath. Who else can say that? Nobody. It is, sad to say, practically unheard of. And if we ever needed it in anybody, surely it is in the head of the Executive branch.
6. He is open about what he is doing.
An example of this can be found on Dr. Paul’s campaign website, where in prominent display are the totals, minute by minute, of money flowing into his coffers from campaign contributors. I’ve seen no other candidate do this. It is a small example, perhaps, but it is telling.
7. He is neither owned nor cowed by special interests.
In his years in the House of Representatives, Congressman Paul has proven beyond doubt that he cannot be bought. Lobbyists, I am told, don’t even bother trying to get in to see him, since they know that if government funding of their pet projects would be unconstitutional, they are wasting their time. The pressures on a President to bow to powerful interests are sure to be tremendous, and a man who can stand up to them is a very great man indeed.
8. He believes in the America of our Founders.
It has been a slow and painful awakening for some of us to realize that the America in which we now live is not the one our Founders gave us. Sadly, our peace, prosperity and freedom are all under assault. We still have a lot to be thankful for, there is no doubt of that, but we cannot afford to let our freedom keep slipping away, and I want the guy who remembers where we came from and wants to make good the original Revolution.
9. He is modest.
When Congressman Paul talks about his success, he attributes it to the popularity of the ideas he espouses. It is the ideas, not the man, that are carrying this movement, as he has repeatedly said. But the truth is that in the world today, it takes a giant of a man to carry this torch, and he, who is such a man, carries it with grace and modesty. This suggests to me that he cares more for the ideas and for the freedom of his countrymen than he does for his own ambition, and who wouldn’t want a President like that?
10. He addresses the issues that matter.
There is always political noise about something, but Dr. Paul cuts under the fray to get at what is causing situations to occur. This sort of approach lends itself to solutions. It is interesting to consider that under a Paul administration, the tide might be reversed, and we might actually regain some of our freedom and prosperity and peace.
11. He is courageous.
If we ever needed a brave man in office, it is now. The pressures that threaten freedom in our land are formidable, and a mere politician, I think, could not stem the tide. Only a statesman could do that, and in Dr. Paul, by the grace of God, we have such a man. Even he could not do it alone, though, and it is heart-warming to see the great numbers of people who are rising up to rally around this cause. This is a movement of historic proportions, and may give us the best chance we’ll ever have to restore the foundations of our Republic.
12. He is a nice person.
The President is the first and most public Ambassador of the United States of America. Dr. Paul shows in many ways that he would uphold this responsibility admirably. He demonstrates through example the tenets of his faith (like wanting to treat other nations the way we would like other nations to treat us); he demonstrates professionalism and honesty, scholarship and humor, compassion and integrity. By example alone, he would improve America’s standing in the world.
WHAT I THINK....HAL CRANMER
When I played football in high school there would always be a late August week of practice known as "Hell Week." Practices would start at 6:30 in the morning and, with some breaks in between, would not be complete until 6–7pm. They were long, hot days filled with many full-contact drills. The idea behind them, the head coach would tell us, was to make sure we were in the best shape we could be in for the season. When the fourth quarter came around in a tough game, he wanted to make sure the other team was sucking wind, not us.
Around the same time as those practices, there was a commercial on TV for Fram Oil Filters. The commercial was set in a junkyard, and an auto mechanic was holding one of the filters. The mechanic’s memorable line was "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later," meaning you can buy an inexpensive oil filter now, or you can pay for a new engine when yours breaks down. My coach would always cite that commercial when we were tired and dragging during hell week. We could pay for a week in August, or we could pay on game day throughout the season.
Today that same Fram commercial from the 80’s is very applicable to the Presidential race. All of the candidates except Ron Paul want to turn that slogan on its head. The politicians tell voters that you don’t need to pay now – and if you elect them you don’t have to pay later. You never have to pay! We’ll get someone else to foot the bill. Run your car into the ground, we’ll keep it going – for free!
Ron Paul is the mechanic in the junkyard. He wants America to buy an oil filter and feel a little pain now, in order to avoid a tremendous pain later. Sure, switching over to a gold standard will hurt people who are highly leveraged, or that benefit from inflation, but the alternative is eventual bankruptcy for the whole nation – which is worse?
Eliminating the IRS will make business for tax accountants dry up, but there are many other uses in business for these highly-skilled (and patriotic I might add) people. Expanding the IRS, like so many Presidential candidates must do in order to pay for their programs, will take away more freedom, and the economy will continue to suffer more and more.
Foreign policy. Bringing the troops home and removing ourselves from foreign entanglements would hurt the profits of Halliburton and Bechtel in the short term. It would also make it harder for dictators in other countries to finance their governments. But wouldn’t it be better to introduce Harley Davidson, Levi Strauss and Victoria Secret to these countries we fight instead? In the long run, which set of products would a foreign country embrace more – our war machine, or our leisure-time activities?
Reducing government spending is overall the hardest preventative maintenance that the American electorate can do. So many people have become dependent on government that the thought of being left without their security blanket is abhorrent. Ron Paul is asking those people to look at the total costs. The people may be getting a dependable check now from the government, but inflation will increasingly destroy their standard of living. Those same people will fall further and further behind if they do not turn to the free market to increase their wealth.
Ron Paul’s Mandate
No matter who wins in November, they will have to deal with Ron Paul’s ideas. That is because Dr. Paul is a champion of the free market, which is always present. Sure, when government grows too large, many people start calling the free market the black market. But even if you lived in the Soviet Union, or North Korea, you would still have to deal with people trading with each other on a voluntary basis. No amount of government can ever stamp that out. Human innovation is just too powerful.
Yet many politicians try – including the current bunch in the US.
And the results are inevitable. The free market passes judgment on the people who tolerate an overreaching government, and the verdict is grim. Countries who follow the ideas Dr. Paul proposes always prosper, those that don’t always suffer.
Sure, many politicians pay lip service to the free market. They talk about wasteful spending, and the need to cut taxes, but they never do anything. If they cut taxes, the politicians don’t cut spending. They just make up for the shortfall by printing money. Always and everywhere they just grow government, one way or another.
Ron Paul is the one politician crying "Fair Warning," and everyone wants to strike him down for it. Nobody wants to lose their "bennies." They want to hit the open road and just keep driving – Jiffy Lube be damned!
Other politicians are taking note of what Ron Paul is saying, because it IS resonating, but they don’t mean it. Fred Thompson is boasting about his one dissenting vote on many pieces of legislation in the Senate (although the truth is not as impressive as it sounds). Mike Huckabee has talked about abolishing the IRS (which is pretty laughable considering how much Gov. Huckabee liked to tax in Arkansas). And Democrats are now condemning the Iraq War after they all voted for it 5 years ago.
The reason Ron Paul’s ideas always win, is because they are not his ideas. Other politicians come up with their plans, which they want to force on to the American people (and the rest of the world in many cases). Ron Paul is like a really good financial analyst. He takes a look at the present situation, looks for parallels in the past, and applies what has worked before to the world of today. He doesn’t tell us what "should" work, but rather what "will" work based on human nature. Human nature has never changed – and it never will. We all want to increase pleasure and remove discomfort. To do this for some at the expense of others, will always and everywhere bring on the wrath of the "others." Ron Paul does not try to change the world. He tries to remove the constraints that hold people back, and let the people of the world, change the world.
That is why the other politicians worry about Ron Paul. His ideas will always crush their ideas. Sometimes it takes a little longer, but it will inevitably happen.
Dr. Paul attributes his popularity to the message, not to himself. That is because he is just trying to show people how the world works, not how he will work the world. The other candidates are offering policy prescriptions that try to fight the ideas Ron Paul talks about.
For instance, many candidates talk about a stimulus package for the economy, as if they can control the economy. Ron Paul wants to let the economy be, because he knows that every person in the economy is doing all we can to stimulate it. When a politician talks about stimulus, what they really mean is higher taxes, inflation or regulation that take away your own "stimulus."
For over 30 years, Ron Paul has been a lonely voice trying to align the country with the forces of the market. During that time the rest of the political establishment has been driving on blindly, without a care about what is going on under the hood. Lately the knocks and pings are getting louder. The question is – will you pay the price by electing Ron Paul now, or will you pay him later when the free market passes judgment on another candidate’s ambitious plans? As for me – I’ll head to Autozone!
Around the same time as those practices, there was a commercial on TV for Fram Oil Filters. The commercial was set in a junkyard, and an auto mechanic was holding one of the filters. The mechanic’s memorable line was "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later," meaning you can buy an inexpensive oil filter now, or you can pay for a new engine when yours breaks down. My coach would always cite that commercial when we were tired and dragging during hell week. We could pay for a week in August, or we could pay on game day throughout the season.
Today that same Fram commercial from the 80’s is very applicable to the Presidential race. All of the candidates except Ron Paul want to turn that slogan on its head. The politicians tell voters that you don’t need to pay now – and if you elect them you don’t have to pay later. You never have to pay! We’ll get someone else to foot the bill. Run your car into the ground, we’ll keep it going – for free!
Ron Paul is the mechanic in the junkyard. He wants America to buy an oil filter and feel a little pain now, in order to avoid a tremendous pain later. Sure, switching over to a gold standard will hurt people who are highly leveraged, or that benefit from inflation, but the alternative is eventual bankruptcy for the whole nation – which is worse?
Eliminating the IRS will make business for tax accountants dry up, but there are many other uses in business for these highly-skilled (and patriotic I might add) people. Expanding the IRS, like so many Presidential candidates must do in order to pay for their programs, will take away more freedom, and the economy will continue to suffer more and more.
Foreign policy. Bringing the troops home and removing ourselves from foreign entanglements would hurt the profits of Halliburton and Bechtel in the short term. It would also make it harder for dictators in other countries to finance their governments. But wouldn’t it be better to introduce Harley Davidson, Levi Strauss and Victoria Secret to these countries we fight instead? In the long run, which set of products would a foreign country embrace more – our war machine, or our leisure-time activities?
Reducing government spending is overall the hardest preventative maintenance that the American electorate can do. So many people have become dependent on government that the thought of being left without their security blanket is abhorrent. Ron Paul is asking those people to look at the total costs. The people may be getting a dependable check now from the government, but inflation will increasingly destroy their standard of living. Those same people will fall further and further behind if they do not turn to the free market to increase their wealth.
Ron Paul’s Mandate
No matter who wins in November, they will have to deal with Ron Paul’s ideas. That is because Dr. Paul is a champion of the free market, which is always present. Sure, when government grows too large, many people start calling the free market the black market. But even if you lived in the Soviet Union, or North Korea, you would still have to deal with people trading with each other on a voluntary basis. No amount of government can ever stamp that out. Human innovation is just too powerful.
Yet many politicians try – including the current bunch in the US.
And the results are inevitable. The free market passes judgment on the people who tolerate an overreaching government, and the verdict is grim. Countries who follow the ideas Dr. Paul proposes always prosper, those that don’t always suffer.
Sure, many politicians pay lip service to the free market. They talk about wasteful spending, and the need to cut taxes, but they never do anything. If they cut taxes, the politicians don’t cut spending. They just make up for the shortfall by printing money. Always and everywhere they just grow government, one way or another.
Ron Paul is the one politician crying "Fair Warning," and everyone wants to strike him down for it. Nobody wants to lose their "bennies." They want to hit the open road and just keep driving – Jiffy Lube be damned!
Other politicians are taking note of what Ron Paul is saying, because it IS resonating, but they don’t mean it. Fred Thompson is boasting about his one dissenting vote on many pieces of legislation in the Senate (although the truth is not as impressive as it sounds). Mike Huckabee has talked about abolishing the IRS (which is pretty laughable considering how much Gov. Huckabee liked to tax in Arkansas). And Democrats are now condemning the Iraq War after they all voted for it 5 years ago.
The reason Ron Paul’s ideas always win, is because they are not his ideas. Other politicians come up with their plans, which they want to force on to the American people (and the rest of the world in many cases). Ron Paul is like a really good financial analyst. He takes a look at the present situation, looks for parallels in the past, and applies what has worked before to the world of today. He doesn’t tell us what "should" work, but rather what "will" work based on human nature. Human nature has never changed – and it never will. We all want to increase pleasure and remove discomfort. To do this for some at the expense of others, will always and everywhere bring on the wrath of the "others." Ron Paul does not try to change the world. He tries to remove the constraints that hold people back, and let the people of the world, change the world.
That is why the other politicians worry about Ron Paul. His ideas will always crush their ideas. Sometimes it takes a little longer, but it will inevitably happen.
Dr. Paul attributes his popularity to the message, not to himself. That is because he is just trying to show people how the world works, not how he will work the world. The other candidates are offering policy prescriptions that try to fight the ideas Ron Paul talks about.
For instance, many candidates talk about a stimulus package for the economy, as if they can control the economy. Ron Paul wants to let the economy be, because he knows that every person in the economy is doing all we can to stimulate it. When a politician talks about stimulus, what they really mean is higher taxes, inflation or regulation that take away your own "stimulus."
For over 30 years, Ron Paul has been a lonely voice trying to align the country with the forces of the market. During that time the rest of the political establishment has been driving on blindly, without a care about what is going on under the hood. Lately the knocks and pings are getting louder. The question is – will you pay the price by electing Ron Paul now, or will you pay him later when the free market passes judgment on another candidate’s ambitious plans? As for me – I’ll head to Autozone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
