How The Government & Media Cheated Ron Paul

Remember: representative democracy is just a dog and pony show.  For almost two centuries in the United States, our Presidential candidates have been handpicked by whatever the dominant business interest is of the times.  For example, both Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, both long-time rivals even in the Presidential race of 1860, had close ties to Illinois Central Railroad.  Douglas himself was a shill for them, providing the typical government privileges and Lincoln was a lawyer who represented them.

The fact is, Ron Paul got the most individual donations to his campaign in comparison to every other candidate in both parties, especially from the military.  Yes there were top brass who denounced him, but you have to view top generals and admirals in the armed forces as nothing more than bureaucrats in fancy uniforms.  They have long forgotten the horrors of war, if they have ever experienced it, and come up with cute new ideas to destroy the armed services (like partying during basic training and putting women on the front lines).

If the past election proved anything, its that the President is a puppet figure head of dominant financial interests, nothing more.  This is why Barack Obama spends more of his time vacationing than leading.  He doesn’t have to do anything as the bureaucratic machine moves ever forward and is run by handpicked corporate favorites.

This is why Ron Paul was treated as he was in the mainstream media and by the Republican party elite.  They could not stand a true leader in the office as the Presidency still does hold a lot of potentially untapped power.

Ron Paul is the only Winnable Candidate Part 2

Reinforcing what I wrote yesterday, I’ve found a video that exposes the GOP’s blatant attempts to remove Ron Paul from the running:

I may just not vote at all. The Republican party is full of assholes.

Ron Paul is the Only Winnable Candidate

Having followed politics for a while now, I can admit that there is a lot I still don’t know.  It is hard to analyze the whole scope of it and very few people can do so effectively.  Perhaps it’s my own status as an outsider that allows me some insights that other people don’t see, but I still miss a lot.

But there is one thing I am certain of this year and I know this because of my own experience with the like-minded folks: if anyone other than Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, then the Republicans will lose the Presidency yet again.

One the primary reasons is that Ron Paul stands apart from President Obama in so many issues where as the other candidates are not as good at making a distinction.  Willard “Mitt” Romney, for example, is a moderate progressive and probably agrees with most of President Obama’s policies.  Sure there will be subtle differences, but those differences will be less apparent in comparison to the bigger issues.  The big issues are the fiscal crisis in the Federal government and the foreign entanglements, both of which would be shared policies by Obama and Romney.  Personally, I’d rather have Obama just to reinforce that big government doesn’t work in the mind of the public.  Remember, everyone blamed capitalism when the housing crisis hit because the Democrats weren’t in power.

Rick Santorum cannot possibly win because he main focus is social issues, which garners at best 28% of the vote.  I am certain that the estimate is too high.  The Republicans have played the social issues card for so long now that most people are tired of hearing about.  Many of my generation (both X & Y) see social issues as minor issues and that so long as they are not forced on the general public via laws or judgments, then we are OK with things like the gays who want marriage, even if we disagree with it morally.  In essence, we’re more tolerant, in the true sense of the term.  Either that or we simply do not care.  In any case, social issues are a dead on arrival.  Also, I’m pretty sure he has a daughter who is dying, so that’s a major distraction.  Well, for most people anyway.

Newt Gringrich is a snob.  Most people don’t like to vote for snobs, no matter how smart or well-intentioned they are.

Another reason that Ron Paul is the only winnable candidate is because of his supporters.  While I do not bank on the fact that anti-war Leftists (the true believers) will vote for him nor do I think he can necessarily bring in independents, because they’re really just Democrats who won’t say it aloud, I think his supporters will reject anyone else.  This will have a devastating effect on the Republican nominee on election day.  Consider that Ron Paul has been consistently getting second and third place in most states so far, along with a  possible win in Maine, if just half of those people refuse to vote or vote third party or write in on election day, then the Republicans lose a good chunk of needed votes.

The fact is, there are more and more Ron Paul supporters who fail to see the distinction between Romney, Gringrich, Santorum, and Obama.  While there certainly is a movement that surrounds Ron Paul, I suspect that his movement will continue long after his death.

The primary reason that John McCain lost in 2008 is because he did not provide a distinction between himself and Barack Obama.  Even though he picked Sarah Palin as his Vice President, he ended up squandering that momentum when he went off and voted in support of TARP.  In doing so, he pretty much soured any chance he had of winning.  When Dave Ramsey did his show on Election Day in 2008, he had callers tell him who they voted for.  Most of those who said that they voted for John McCain said abortion was the primary reason why, which is just another indication that social issues are loser issues.

So far, Ron Paul is the only candidate with a clear plan to balance the budget in the first term.  All of the young people like this because they know that they will not have to pay higher taxes in their elder years as a result of Federal debt deflation.

In any case, I doubt that the Republicans will let Ron Paul gain the nomination, even if he wins the necessary delegates.  After all, the message from the Republican elites has been that it is their party and they will do what they want with it.

At least we really start to see the end of the Republican party and all the hypocrisy that it encompasses.  The Democrats will remain as they gain votes via moochers and looters, which now make up close to 50% of this once great nation.

Virginia Republican Primary Qualifications Legitimize Ron Paul

In my state, the great Commonwealth of Virginia, there are only two Republican candidates for President on the ballot.  They are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  Apparently, while I was on vacation in the past two weeks (or while I was getting ready for it), Rick Perry and Newt Gringrich did not like that and have decided to sue.  Normally, this would not have been a big deal, since last time Virginia’s primary happened one week after Super Tuesday, but this year it apparently happens on Super Tuesday (March 6th) and so it is a huge deal.

The state of Virginia requires 10,000 signatures from registered Virginia voters where 400 of those signatures have to be from all of Virginia’s Congressional districts.  While those requirements are hefty, and probably do discourage third parties, they also ensure that only people who receive massive support from the general populace are given a chance versus the much more unpopular, but at least equally hyped, candidates.  There is no opportunity for a write-in on the primary in Virginia.

What gets interesting in all of this is the face that this is the first time it has happened, because it appears to be the first time it has been enforced:

The only reason the Virginia Republican Party checked the signatures for validity for the current primary is that in October 2011, an independent candidate for the legislature, Michael Osborne, sued the Virginia Republican Party because it did not check petitions for its own members, when they submitted primary petitions. Osborne had no trouble getting the needed 125 valid signatures for his own independent candidacy, but he charged that his Republican opponent’s primary petition had never been checked, and that if it had been, that opponent would not have qualified. The lawsuit, Osborne v Boyles, cl 11-520-00, was filed in Bristol County Circuit Court. It was filed too late to be heard before the election, but is still pending. The effect of the lawsuit was to persuade the Republican Party to start checking petitions. If the Republican Party had not changed that policy, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry would be on the 2012 ballot.

In other words, the state was making sure that you had to be a member of either faction of the Bank Party or suffer severe scrutiny.  That is until one person had enough and successfully sued in order to see a much more fair election result.  Now the state is forced to verify all petitions in order to ensure fairness.

I take from this whole fiasco a few things:

1. That the only viable candidates for the Republican nominee for President are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  This is because they were the only two candidates who have the widespread support needed.  All other candidates do not have the support needed to gain the nomination.
2. If Ron Paul managed to qualify in Virginia, as one of only two, that means he can win despite what Mainstream Conservatives and Neoconservatives would have you believe.
3. The party machine that established this heavy-handed system in order to make people qualify did so with the idea that people like Ron Paul could be left out.  Too bad times are changing….

I find it amusing that so many pundits still rail against Ron Paul as being an unwinnable candidate and that his ideas are fringe ideas.  Time after time, when dealing directly with people who would vote Republican and not some elderly Democrat supporter who is home on a weekday, Ron Paul brings in the numbers that legitimize his candidacy.  Yet he continues to be ignored, besmirched, or shunned because of his traditional conservative values when it comes to the role of the Federal government.

I still am skeptical as to whether or not Ron Paul will ultimately win the nomination.  I have a suspicion that most primary and caucus voters are predominantly old-guard Republican or Mainstream Conservative, neither of whom have any love for Ron Paul because he does not like bombing women and children in foreign nations (or blowing up dogs or throwing puppies off cliffs).

But I have heard that there are more and more young people who adhere to the ideals of Constitutional Conservatism, as Ron Paul does, and they are the future of this nation, unless we are conquered by an outside power within a generation (which is always a possibility no matter how remote it seems).

Even if Ron Paul loses this year and retires from the life of a public “servant”, his ideas will carry on into the future.  It seems that liberty and freedom are making a comeback and maybe we will be able to make this nation a shining beacon of hope once again.

Economically Ignorant Candidates

The slightly poorer economic conditions of the United States have been one of the major focuses with the current Republican presidential candidates.  However, most of them have lacked a coherent plan for creating jobs and bringing wealth back to the United States.

Herman Cain, for example, has been constantly touting his 9-9-9 plan, which while a bit novel, will never pass in Congress unless we vote out at least 88% of them.  This is because most of the career politicians who work officially as members of Congress have too much money and interests invested in the mess of a tax code that we have.  More to the point, this plan only addresses the taxation side of things,  it does not address the spending side.  If we had a balanced budget, then I would be more keen on talking about tax reform.  Also, why did he abandon the FairTax plan?

Other candidates have offered various plans such as bringing the troops home to lifting restrictions on oil drilling.  These are all good ideas but they do not address the real problem.  If the troops come home and are discharged from service, they will still need jobs.  If they remain in the military in some capacity, we still have to pay them with tax revenue from the productive sector, which is not good economics.  As for oil drilling, this would create more jobs for working Americans, but not everyone wants to spend their days on an oil rig or in an oil field.  Most people would prefer a different kind of job not because they are snobs, but because they simply have different interests.

The real issue with economic stagnation that the government can address is to simply step aside and do nothing about it.  For the past several decades, we have been allowing our government to engage in spending plans in order to bring us back from Economic Armageddon yet it does not seem to be working all that well, especially as of late.  Perhaps it is time for the Federal government to do nothing and step aside.  A government does not produce anything of value, of course, and it can only leech off of the productive sector in order to fund its operations.

Of course, having the government step aside is easier said than done.  There are millions upon billions of pages of government laws, regulations, and mandates all pointed to intervening in your life in some way, shape, and form.  All of these actions have an impact on the way business is done by all economic actors.  Therefore, simply telling the government to step aside or a candidate promising to get the government to step aside is way too broad a suggestion.  What is really needed is a specific list of agencies, departments, regulations, mandates, and laws that will be done away with completely.

So far, I have seen only one candidate who has outlined a specific plan where deficits are done away with in the next Presidential term, government is cut down significantly, and most of the Federal government’s end of life obligations such as Medicare and Social Security are met.  I cannot name him here, because his name has become a curse among the mainstream political culture.

At the same time, his support has slowly been growing while the other candidate’s have had volatile support as many of the Republican primary and caucus voters have been trying each one out like some flavor of ice cream.  I suspect that he under-polls in most national poll services from mainstream pollsters because he tends to be more popular with younger generations rather than older ones.  And the elderly usually answer their landline phones on weekdays because they have nothing better to do.  Also, most young people have cell phones and don’t bother with landlines.

In any event, unless any Presidential candidate offers a plan to make deep, drastic, and long-lasting cuts to the Federal government’s budget and offers to eliminate large numbers of government workers, then any economic plan put forth is not worth the dust on your bookshelf.  You may as well vote for the status quo because that is exactly what you are going to get.

On the Ron Paul Blackout

So far, there has been a massive media blackout of Ron Paul during this election cycle.  When I say blackout, I mean that nobody is talking about him or even mentioning him and usually when they do, it is along the lines about how he cannot win.  Yet when his supporters point this out, they are often met with criticism about how they a bunch of spammers or that they are wrong.  Well, two images have appeared within the last week that prove differently:

All the debates have been controlled by some media outlet or another.  They are directed and moderated by the media and none of the candidates who are invited are given a fair shake.  Also, this one just came out today:

Notice how Sarah Palin, who cannot win because she is not running, got more coverage than Ron Paul?

Now, all of this would be justified if Ron Paul was doing poorly overall.  If he was consistently getting 2% of the votes in the polls across the country, then maybe I could see a justification for such lackluster coverage.  Unfortunately, this is not the case as Ron Paul won the CPAC straw polls in 2010 and 2011, came in close second at the Ames Straw poll without having to buy any votes for a free country concert, won the California straw poll, and won the Values Voters straw poll.  He has also come in third in many of the various polls taken from the more credible sources.

In the long run, Ron Paul does not matter all that much.  But he is the only one who stands out from all the rest.  The rest of the candidates seem to be offering the same solutions, even Herman Cain’s unique tax restructuring is merely something that has already been recommended by some in Congress in one form or another.  None of them seem to be citing the Constitution when they articulate their policy plans and none of them have stated that they will decrease spending.  Many just seem to want government to work better, not leaner.

The news media has long been biased for Statists and against liberty.  I do not know why exactly, although if we were to go through the history of modern journalism I am sure the answers would become apparent, but that fact remains that they will always promote the most Statist candidate they can find.

Ron Paul, while not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, at least offers a golden path back to our constitutional roots as a nation.  And while it may already be too late to save this nation from the coming collapse of our civilization, as long as it has not happened, it is worth a try.  A Ron Paul presidency means our nation will in the right direction on all fronts while any other candidate, including the current President, means more business as usual.

Responding to a Ron Paul Hater

Well, it looks like I have engaged a tough battle with fellow blogger John Scotus over the past few days, largely in response to his claim that Ron Paul blames the United States for the 9/11 attacks.  While I am not going into that topic specifically, largely because it is an emotionally charged topic where both sides rarely see eye-to-eye much like the abortion debate,  I am going to address something else.  In his comments, John stated that he believes Ron Paul is not “honest, principled, credible, or sane”.  When I asked him to clarify, he made the following comment:

As pointed out elsewhere on this blog, when Ron Paul ran the House seat in the 1990s he claimed that Ronald Reagan was supporting his candidacy. He was caught in this lie when Ed Meese flew out to Texas to confront him. In his recent campaign, he has personally backed away from this claim. However, many of his supporters are still making it, and he has done nothing to clear the air. This is dishonest. Consequently, most people are under the impression that Ron Paul supported Reagan’s presidency (not true), and that Reagan gave an overall endorsement of Ron Paul’s policies (also not true). Since he is running on Reagan’s coattails, if he were honest he would clear this up.
Then we have the issue of the newsletters produced under his name which were full of racist remarks. His denials about not having authored or known about them are simply not credible.

Let me start off with the first claim, where Ron Paul used the sacred cow of Ronald Reagan improperly.  Ron Paul ran for Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s.  It was in 1982 that Ronald Reagan endorsed Ron Paul’s candidacy for Congress.  He stated as follows:

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.

The was largely due to a tough primary that Ron Paul was facing due to his isolationist or non-interventionist views.  As typical of Republicans even in those days, they were attacking him for being weak on defense and not supporting our troops.  This is not surprising as the more things change, the more they stay the same.  It is always the Buckley conservatives who accuse their rivals as being weak on national defense when they refuse to endorse, support, or create foreign offenses with our military.  In other words, if you do not support engaging in wars, regardless of whether or not there was Congressional approval, you are weak on defending the United States from foreign attacks.

Anyways, when Ron Paul received this endorsement, he won his seat in Congress.  One could argue that this was merely a sitting President ensuring that an incumbent in Congress secured his own seat from a challenger within his own party.  The Tea Party should take note of this as a Republican President will make it harder to get Tea Party candidates into Congress.  Remember when President George W. Bush endorsed Arlen Spector for Senate?

At the end of President Reagan’s second term, Ron Paul had become disgusted with the growing deficit spending and President Reagan’s own weakness in reigning in spending by cutting funding.  He had line-item veto back then, so it would not have been too difficult to balance the budget, unless the Democrats had a supermajority in both Houses of Congress.  Regardless, Ron Paul had gone to Congress in order to stop the runaway spending, which had picked up pace recently due to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society and President Richard Nixon’s abandonment of the gold standard.  Frustrated with his lack of success and appalled that the supposedly fiscally conservative Reagan had overseen large deficit spending and increased national debt, he said this in 1988 when he ran for President as a Libertarian party candidate:

Ronald Reagan has given us a deficit ten times greater than what we had with the Democrats. It didn't take more than a month after 1981, to realize there would be no changes.

Of course this probably left a lot people a little sore within the Republican ranks, despite it being a verifiably true statement.  Numbers do not lie, after all.  But to turn around and attack the Republican party for this and run against them was probably incredibly insulting despite the fact that his Presidential campaign went nowhere in 1988.  You have to understand too, that at this time, the USSR had yet to be toppled by its own weight of ineffective economic planning, so Ronald Reagan’s legacy had yet to be established.

Flash forward to 1996 where Ron Paul is running for Congress again as a Republican (on a side note, the Republican leaders endorsed a former Democrat turned Republican Trojan horse over Ron Paul).  During the course of his campaign, he recycled Ronald Reagan’s endorsement of him from 1982.  Ronald Reagan himself was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease by this time, so it obvious that the endorsement came at an earlier time.  I have not seen the campaign ad that Ron Paul used at the time, but apparently then Texas attorney general Edwin Meese confronted him on it because Ron Paul was apparently an enemy of the sacred.  Out of respect and probably realizing that it was a little dishonest for his part, Ron Paul stopped using the holy words of Ronald Reagan.

Now, to the matter at hand, which is that Ron Paul remains dishonest in John’s eyes.  However, he clearly states that only Ron Paul’s followers have been using the holy endorsement and not Ron Paul himself.  So by extension, because Ron Paul and his campaign staff are not going out to every forum, blog, and editorial that cites Ronald Reagan’s endorsement of him and telling them to cease and desist, this somehow makes Ron Paul dishonest?  Talk about stretching the worm to fit the hook.  Essentially, what we have here is a lack of a rational claim.

I would further note that all these followers who cite Ronald Reagan’s endorsement are not lying or being dishonest.  Ronald Reagan did endorse Ron Paul and they often cite his statement accurately.  Just because they do not cite when it happened, that does not make it any less honest or true.  In short, his whole dishonesty claim is, at best, a fallacy, and, at worst, a complete and utter failure of rational thinking.

Now, as to the racist statements made in a newsletter.  It takes some digging to find the facts, because often times the charge of racism results in a guilty until proven innocent mentality within just about every media circle in existence today.  Just ask Trent Lott who said nothing remotely racist but ended up being crucified for it despite his various pleas for forgiveness from the likes of BET (and honestly, what does that say of the integrity of people when they do not forgive someone who apologizes?).

The back story behind this incident is odd.  Apparently, between 1985 and 2001, Ron Paul set up a media corporation called Ron Paul & Associates.  This company published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report.  Lew Rockwell was the editor of these publications and it appears that the publications allowed a lot of leeway in what was printed.  This is not surprising considering the kind of content that you will find on Lew Rockwell’s own website where he often reprints some of the most oddball articles at times (nothing racist as far as I know).

Apparently, between 1989 and 1993, there were about fifteen articles within one of these publications which featured some blatant racist comments.  I have had trouble finding these articles on the Internet, so there is no way for me to really know what was said exactly at this time.  I suppose that does not matter a whole lot.

None of the articles had a byline and Lew Rockwell stated that there were about seven or eight freelance writers.  I guess their mistake was not requiring a byline for the writers as there is no way any kind of nasty content would have gotten in the newsletters.  I am certain that Lew Rockwell’s responsibility in the newsletter was minimal as he probably was doing other things as well at this time.

This does not exonerate either Lew Rockwell or Ron Paul for the content of their newsletters.  When you are at the head of an organization, you take responsibility for the actions taken by those who work for you.  At least, that is what men of integrity do.  In any case, Ron Paul himself has said the following regarding the whole mess:

When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.

Indeed, this is not the words of man who lacks integrity, but one who is willing to admit a failure in administration of his own affairs.  He made a mistake in not paying more attention to what was written in his name and he has owned up to it.  But he was working as an OBG/YN at the time and held a minority share in the company.  I suppose after failing big in the Presidential election, he decided to focus on his own private affairs again and wanted little to do with public life.  In any case, he has owned up to his mistake, forgetting that politicians never retire from or leave public office; they merely do other things related like media publications or operate lobby firms.

The only lack of credibility I can sense is that Ron Paul will not give us the name of the person(s) responsible for the racist content between 1989 and 1993.  He has stated that at the time he was not paying attention and I am wondering how he lacks credibility in this regard.  It seems to me that he has made a credible statement with regards to what happened, owned up to his mistakes, and moved on.  How unfortunate that others cannot.

With regards to his supposed lack of principles, I have this to say: Ron Paul has nearly always voted based on his principles rather than voted along party lines.  His Congressional voting record is one long string of principled votes, even voting against his own party when he believes they are wrong.  To say he lacks principle is disingenuous at best.

And about his sanity: seeing as how you cannot be insane to run a country but would have to be insane in order to run for political office, it is kind of Catch-22 situation.

Often times, when we dislike someone intensely, we focus on the smallest flaws and exploit them stating that this proves our discontent with that person is valid.  It would seem that John Scotus and others who trout out these tired arguments are seeking to validate their own distaste for Ron Paul and validate them using the flimsiest of excuses.  I have no problem with people opposing Ron Paul based on his stances on the issues as that is the perfectly legitimate discourse of politics.  At the same time, I have witnessed what I can only refer to as deranged hatred of all things Ron Paul coming a significant portion of conservatives who openly state that an Obama presidency is preferable to a Paul presidency.  I have seen not just on John Scotus’ blog, which has refrained from hurling insults, but on various conservative forums as well.  It is amazing how much vitriol and  outright poison is spewed in opposition to Ron Paul, something they often accuse liberals of doing.

The fact is, I do not expect any acknowledge from these people for what I have written here.  I just believed that what was stated merited an extensive response which had to be longer than a few short paragraphs.

Jeffrey Lord Gives Typical Criticism of Ron Paul

So I am listening to Jeffrey Lord on Jerry Doyle’s show today.  The interview focused on his latest article about how Ron Paul is a liberal because of his non-interventionist foreign policy stance.  I’ve read over the article and while I am not going to quote it here, because it is long and I have already linked to it, I want to point out some things about it that were predictable from Ron Paul opponents:

• Almost predictably, Mr. Lord trots out the anti-Semitism argument.  If you oppose bombing foreign Muslim children in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, and Somalia, you must hate the Jews.  Never mind that none of these bombings are constitutional considering they are not about national defense and no official declaration of war has been declared.  I have yet to hear Ron Paul declare that it is the Jews who are behind United States foreign policy.  I will acknowledge that some of his supporters are openly racist, but by and large the non-interventionist stance has nothing to do with race and more to do with the constitutional limitations of foreign policy.
• Jeffrey Lord does his best to cite liberal Republicans who share the same views as Ron Paul does with regards to not intervening in World War I and World War II.  While there is a lot to get into with regards to both, let me just turn Mr. Lord’s logic on his face.  If Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy matches that of liberal Republicans who opposed those wars, then the conservatives of today are more like the progressive liberal Democrats of last century such as Woodrow Wilson, who entered World War I to spread democracy to Germany, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Both Presidents who presided over these wars were extremely Left-wing which would make modern “conservatives” like George Bush more akin to progressive liberals than conservatives.
• Most of what he bases his accusations on is based on people who have supported Ron Paul rather than Ron Paul himself.  Granted, there are many anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, and libertarians who make up Ron Paul’s support.  Frankly, I am glad to see that these Americans have a voice in one of the major parties rather than being relegated to some no name third party.  And I thought George W. Bush was trying to create a big tent?  I guess the far Right has to use the back door and different water fountains in that tent.
• Mr. Lord cites the Monroe Doctrine as an example of the United States’ history of intervention in foreign policy and as a founding father.  I do not recall James Monroe as being a prominent member of the Founding Fathers and from what I understand, the Monroe Doctrine was not used to interfere militarily in the affairs of Central and South America until progressive Republican President Teddy Roosevelt.  On a side note, read up on Teddy Roosevelt’s death and the tragedy that befall this warmonger’s idealism.  In any case, the United States was, by and large, not intervening until the progressive movement took hold in the ranks of power.
• Mr. Lord cites Alexander Hamilton and his role in the creation of the first central bank as an example of a Founding Father who Ron Paul overlooks.  Too bad he forgot that most other Founding Fathers overlooked him as well since Hamilton was in favor of establishing a monarchy here in the United States our the post-colonial, pre-Constitution nation.  Hamilton was nothing short of a Statist but he was trusted as Treasury Secretary largely because he was good at financial matters.  Keep in mind also that the United States existed and prospered without a central bank for over eighty years, that the Federal Reserve was established to stop nasty depressions, and that it oversaw the Great Depression.  It is foolish to support the Federal Reserve given that more and more Americans are looking into it and questioning the value of it.
• Finally, Mr. Lord runs through a list of conservatives who Ron Paul supporters have labeled as not conservative.  Again, though, Ron Paul himself has merely taken support from people who have otherwise not had a voice in any of the major parties for several decades now, so of course you are going to get some unconventional views.  Besides, if you trace the conservative movement before 1955, it was largely a non-interventionist movement.  It was William F. Buckley, Jr. and Brent Bozell, Jr. who hijacked it and made into the warmongering movement it is today.

I am not going to apologize for Ron Paul.  I have my own disagreements with him, mainly his immigration views and his earmarking of President Obama’s stimulus spending.  However, I find that I agree with him more often than not and that his foreign policy tends to represent mutual respect and courtesy for other nations while at the same time allowing for defense against aggression.  When you consider that Israel has 300 nuclear bombs and that if Iran even sneezed fallout in their direction there would be massive repercussions, then you can better understand by Congressman Paul was less concerned with Iran getting a nuclear weapon.  By and large, Iran has never been an aggressive nation and most of its actions have been defensive actions, although on a much lower scale than our “defensive” actions.

The fact is, a President who can go to war without Congressional approval is, fundamentally, a dictator.  If you can engage in military action with impunity and without limitation, then you have the perfect recipe for a thug.  Look at what President Obama did with Libya.  Congress told him to stop and he ignored them.  And all the while, conservative fools like Mark Levin were scrambling to justify it because they know they would painted as hypocrites or partisan hacks if they opposed it.

In any case, Jeffrey Lord has done well to remind me as to why I do not consider myself conservative anymore and has reinforced why I have no political label.  I have always be wary of many of the conservative arguments, largely because many of them are emotion-driven like their liberal opponents, and when I brought to light many of the contradictions, I was hit with insults instead of further instruction as to where I was wrong.  I support Ron Paul because he has been consistent throughout much of his political career and because he shows the most respect for the Constitution, a tired, old piece of paper when it comes to liberals and domestic policy as well as conservatives when it comes to foreign policy.

Finding a Better Solution for Terrorism

First of all, I want to post this for your consideration:

The Southern Avenger highlights the alternative viewpoints on foreign policy that are both reasonable and effective.  While I won’t say that they would work better than what we are doing now, they certainly would be much cheaper than what we are doing now.  Sometimes, you have to fight the war you have.

The fact of the matter is, our current approach to foreign policy has failed to effectively secure us against Islamic terror networks.  Already in the past year we have seen at least two attacks that can be linked to Islamic terror while our Janet “Shoulder Pads” Napolitano has targeted people like me as a possible terror threat.  Sadly, most conservatives were not outraged by that and instead focused on the fact that she targeted veterans.  Libertarians really do have no allies on the Left or the Right.

I like Ann Coulter.  I have my disagreements with her, but she is humorous and entertaining and ended up jokingly campaigning for Hilary Clinton in 2008 because John McCain won the Republican nomination.  I’ve read a few of her books (the best ones are listed in my favorite books widget) and she is very intelligent and witty at the same time.

But she is wrong on foreign policy, unfortunately.  What the Southern Avenger failed to address, probably because of a limited timeframe, is that most conservatives, especially the “Low-Church” conservatives, tend to view any antiwar sentiment as radical Left-wing and therefore crazy.  What Ron Paul offers is not tolerance or pacifism, but a more reasonable approach to a very complex threat to the United States.

Islamic terrorism is stateless, faceless, and very difficult to uproot.  When you attack as we have, any people in the Muslim who are marginally sympathetic to Islamic causes will teeter our way.  This gets reinforced when we bomb civilian targets and end up killing an electronics repairman’s friends or family.  It would sure motivate him to get into the bomb-making business.

The United States Constitution provides routes we can go down that will effectively deal with these monsters.  We don’t have to go to war when we don’t need to and we really shouldn’t.  It is costly, not only in American lives, but in taxpayer dollars both present and future.  Since the economy is in a depression and the Bush methods don’t seem to be working for the long-term, maybe it’s high time we look for alternatives.

In Which the Young Fight Back

It finally looks like the libertarians are fighting back and bringing back the old Goldwater conservatism that was once a part of the Republican party.  This is indicated clearly by the straw poll where Ron Paul won 31% of the vote as a favorite for President at CPAC.  Here’s a quick overview:

Ron Paul has ended Mitt Romney's three-year run as conservatives' favorite for president, taking 31 percent of the vote in the Conservative Political Action Conference's annual straw poll.
Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.
Romney, former Massachusetts governor and also a 2008 GOP candidate, has won the last three presidential straw polls at the annual conference. This year, he came in second, with 22 percent.
Sarah Palin, who didn't attend the conference, was a distant third in the straw poll, with 7 percent, followed by Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor, and Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana.

So it looks like CPAC is still full of dogs that like to return to their own vomit.  That’s who the Mitt Romney voters are.  It is foolish to even consider that ideological shapeshifter who ensured the Republican defeat in 2008 by dropping out of the race and allowing that free speech smashing “maverick” running for President.  Why there hasn’t been a massive backlash against Romney in the first place is beyond me.
Sarah Palin got a low vote, which is surprising considering the high level of publicity and exposure she has had in comparison to Romney.  Obviously image isn’t everything.
When you analyze things a little closer, you’ll note that this was only 2500 out of 10000 potential voters, which is why it is more of a poll than an actual popularity election.  Still, that’s more people who have voted than in the past and there were apparently a lot more young people who voted for Ron Paul this time around.
This is because the young, politically active conservatives and libertarians are, by and large, fed up with the constant wars, the high taxes and the collapsing economy they’ve inherited from the generations before them.  And though Ron Paul was the oldest among them, he was also the only one who has consistently voted for the United States Constitution by voting against pretty much every unconstitutional piece of legislation to pass by him.
Because of this, he has given hope to those of us who look into the future and see nothing but state servitude, war, and debt on a massive scale.  While this doesn’t represent anywhere near the vast majority of the millennial generation, it does give me hope for those who also happen to be politically active.
So what out baby boomers and generation X.  The millennial generation is going to rollback all the tyranny you have fought for, long after Ron Paul has left the world stage.  We are getting more and more sick and tired of the inaction of the current crop of conservatives to even try and resolve things.
I doubt any of this will get mentioned by most conservative pundits tomorrow.  If it is, it will be brushed aside as a bunch of kooks running the show and that it wasn’t official and all that other BS.  Paul, you see, doesn’t tow the conservative line of supporting the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about.  And since most old school conservatives like Limbaugh grew up with the likes of Buckley and Reagan and the Cold War, they must always be fighting some enemy.  Yes Islamic head-choppers are a threat, but it is clear to anyone with half a brain that our current efforts have done nothing to diminish them and stop them.
While I don’t agree with everything about Ron Paul (like his earmarking and almost barking moonbat level of antiwar rhetoric), I look at him as the best choice.  I’m glad to see many other people of my generation who seem to agree with that sentiment.

The American Right to Life Lies

I hate abortion.  I think it is beyond sick for women to destroy the unborn solely for the sake of living the life they want rather than face the consequences of their situation.  This mentality is pervasive in our comfortable society where it’s OK to do what you want in the moment in order to avoid the consequences tomorrow.  But worse consequences always follow.  It’s a natural law of mankind that cannot be avoided.

I have no sympathy for women who realize that they’ve committed a heinous murder.  We all have our shames to take with us to death and there isn’t anything you can do to avoid.  I believe that George Tiller probably went to Hell, not for what he did, but because what he did was a clear indicator of his heart and God judges only the heart.  A man saved by Grace given to us by Jesus doesn’t do those terrible things.  It is poetic that he was killed in the one place he really did pay much attention to.  Reminds of when Ezekiel had a vision of the defiled temple.

But the pro-life movement itself has been taken over by Statist radicals.  I guess it was inevitable.  When the Democrats made it clear that the pro-life position wasn’t welcome in their party, they moved to the Republican side.  That is probably were a significant number of RINOs can from actually.  Not all, but probably a good chunk.

The American Right to Life appears to be one such movement.  The reason I say this is because of this profile they’ve put up on Ron Paul.  They have pegged him as a pro-choice, pro-abortion scumbag.  That is ridiculous on its face and it is a clear attack on the more libertarian wing of the Republican party.  If you need any proof, let this video show you his stance on abortion:

It is plain as day what his stance is.

But why?  Why does this group commit liable against Ron Paul?  Well, there are few reasons that I’ve thought up:

• His pro-war stance.  Because he refuses to tow the general GOP line on our interventionist policies and claimed that we would better off if we weren’t at war with one enemy or the next.  The American Right to Life organization could be just doing this in order to remove support from him because of his stance on the war on terrorism and interventionist policies in general.  This would be that they are a Statist organization masquerading as a conservative organization that happens to be pro-life.
• The other reason, and Paul touched on this in the video, is because he doesn’t tow the line when it comes to combating abortion.  Pro-life groups use it to push for pro-life judges mostly.  Many don’t mind that Planned Parenthood receives millions of Federal tax dollars (not to mention the state tax dollars they get as well) and still post record profits, despite being considered a non-profit organization.  Many pro-life groups don’t lobby to have this funding removed.  Even when Republicans had Congress and the Whitehouse, they never removed that funding from the budget.  Probably because Laura Bush wants women to be able to kill their unborn.

I am really sick of this crap.  I am sick of groups like this treating well-meaning conservatives like Ron Paul as dirt.  I swear I will never give a cent to a pro-life organization as a donation of any kind.  It is clear to me that they are on the wrong path and they are not interested in outlawing this heinous crime, much like the black civil rights groups aren’t interested in fixing poverty in the black community.

It just makes me sick.

I Guess We Can’t Get Along After All

With all the crap the Statists in Congress are doing, you’d think that like-minded individuals would band together and fight against their zeal for oppression.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t look to be the case whatsoever if we are to believe the talk radio show pundits.
Now, I don’t listen to Sean Hannity.  It is not because I disagree with him, when in fact I usually do, it has more to do with the fact that his show is just not for me.  At times he seems to be redundant, which to me says that your audience is generally not all that smart.  Or they have adult ADD and need to be reminded again and again of what his show is all about.  That doesn’t mean that intelligent people don’t listen to show.  I’m sure there are plenty.  It just seems like it is insulting my intelligence.
So imagine my surprise when he’s up to his old tricks of condemning libertarians again.  Or more specifically, Ron Paul voters.  You know, those pesky 10% of Republicans who voted for Ron Paul as their Presidential bid.  It’s a shame no prominent conservative talk radio person supported him, otherwise we might have lost the Whitehouse.  Oh wait…
Anyway, the problem is that the Ron Paul voter, like me, is tired of war.  We have about three ongoing major wars that the Federal government has ceaselessly waged in the name of Statists and the destruction of our rights.  They are the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terrorism.  The last one was a new addition after the Soviets fell because the Statists needed a new enemy to impose crushing debts, taxes, and inflated currencies on the dumb masses.
The problem with Ron Paul supporters is that we cannot keep the more mentally stable among us off the air of these shows.  I have to say, however, that many of these people are purposely put on the air in order to make the host look good.  Rush Limbaugh admits to that all the time on his show and it is the truth.  This is probably why I’d never get on, unless I either kissed ass or sounded crazy to the call screener.  And I don’t have the stomach to do either.  (Incidentally, kissing ass is really all you have to do to get on Michael Savage’s show)
If I were to get on his show, or anyone else’s, I think I might ask the following questions and hope that he gives me a serious response:

• Did you know that most Federal employees make 70K or more?  That’s almost double the national average.
• Did you know that 1/3 of the Federal budget goes to defense?  That includes the military, intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security.  Do you really think that if we cut that amount in half, we couldn’t defend ourselves against terrorists and other national threats?
• Are you willing to go all out when it comes to the War on Terror?  I mean, are you willing to nuke their hometowns and turning their families to dust?  Are you willing to dip executioner’s bullets in pigs blood and then executing the prisoners at Gitmo for war crimes?  Are you willing to carpet bomb whole towns and villas and put the fear of the United States above the fear of Allah in their hearts?  If not, then why are we fighting any war?  A nation unwilling to drop a nuclear bomb on their enemy should not go to war.

I’d probably get booted off for being a crackpot or lectured to for being cruel or sadistic.  But who says that war isn’t cruel and sadistic.  If you enemy openly decapitates someone and posts it on the Internet, all the while shouting Allah Akbar to drown out the victim’s screams, then you need to be crueler, not kinder.  War is Hell, after all.
But that’s neither here nor there.  Most of the time, Ron Paul voters catch crap from the likes of Sean Hannity because of our war stances.  But our domestic agenda is the same and no conservative is willing to work with us.  Ten percent is a significant number, not to be scoffed at.  If you really want to bring about some kind of conservative revolution, then you need us more than we need you.
You see, time is on our side.  If you continue to support Statists like Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and other Republicans who do not adhere to the party’s platform, you will lose support and people will turn to us.  That is because Ron Paul represents the kind of person who should be in Congress.  Someone who is willing to vote against legislation because it is unconstitutional, even if it means going against his own party.
So when you’re all done bashing the Democrats in Congress, how about supporting Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and anyone else who happens to be running in a primary who works for liberty and freedom?

Ron Paul's Folly

So even though Ron Paul correctly voted against the "stimulus" bill, he contributed tons of earmarks to it.

I expected this kind of sniveling, two-faced behavior from most other Republicans, who did contribute their own substantial share of earmarks into the bill and then voted against it, but not this guy. I had hoped that he would have been better than that. I hoped he would have taken the libertarian approach and not waste money, even if he was planning on voting against it.

I watched some of his defense on Cavuto's show and it was abysmal on his part. He couldn't answer a single question directly and he kept harping on how this money will be spent anyway. That's like saying that he's on a diet but he has to eat all the ice cream in the freezer because it will go bad anyway.

I voted for this man in the primaries. I felt that he was the most honest politician in DC, that he not only talked about conservative values, he lived them. But I was sorely mistaken apparently. It looks like he just like all the others, the only thing making him stand out was his opposition to the war in Iraq.

If Ron Paul has let the earmarks go to other districts, so what? At least he could say that he wasn't going to be a party to the President's disastrous economic policies. Now he can't say that because he knew the bill would pass anyway and by earmarking money in it that he was against the stimulus bill.

I'm so fed up with Congress. There is not a single one of them who deserve the power they have and the dumb masses continue to vote for them because of some farcical notion that government has to do something to fix their own lives. I'm sick and tired of politicians who don't stay true to their principles.

If Ron Paul had any integrity, he'd resign. He tell everyone that he misbehaved and that it's time he left that hell-hole the world calls Washington DC. There is no room for support of dishonest politicians who cannot hold fast to their values. Say what you want about Democrats, at least they are true to their principles.

Ron Paul's End?

So it looks like Ron Paul hasn't secured the Republican nomination for President. I said before that this was the obvious outcome. I voted for him in the VA primary because the primary is where you stand on principle and not pick the lesser of two evils (take notes Romney). I voted on principle because I wasn't going to pick a man who is probably suffering from severe psychological damage due to being interned at a Vietnamese torture camp. He also is a big government, open borders yahoo.

Now Ron Paul may lose his own Congressional seat. While I am a little sad to see him leave Congress (if that happens), I am not at all worried about the fate of this country. Even though I think Ron Paul is 96% correct on just about every issue out there, this new guy, Peden, doesn't appear to be all that threatening.

The fact is, Ron Paul has been tarred and feathered by the new conservatives. These are not the neocons, these are conservatives who view the war on Islamic head choppers as top priority on the issue list. They usually will disregard all other notions of smaller government and usually refuse to attack liberals on a range of issues, instead reacting to their bullshit.

But Ron Paul is a very old man. I know that politics is doing what he loves right now, but I think he probably should take a break for a while (at least 2 years). If he's still up for it, it may be a good idea to try and run for Senate in Texas (although, I'm not sure if a Senator will be up for re-election in 2010).

I have deep respect for him. His long tenure in the House has earned him the nickname "Dr. No" because he refuses to vote for most legislation that is unconstitutional or doesn't have a constitutional basis. He produces hundreds of pieces of legislation each year, largely pro-limited government based, that is ignored by even the most conservative of talk show hosts. He has proposed legislation that would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade, but he is ignored by most social conservatives.

It is a sad state of affairs when many new conservatives look at a man who stands for most of what they want and pick someone who doesn't have a clear track record of conservatism. Yesterday I posted 6 fundamental conservative principles that should be our core values. Ron Paul exemplifies all of them. Pretty much every other candidate for President on the Republican side has something to answer for a violation of those standards.

I understand why many conservatives and some libertarians wanted nothing to do with Ron Paul. Neal Boortz was especially nasty to him, because of his supporters and because Ron Paul refused to talk with him at the New Hampshire primary (Did you bother to call him afterwards Mr. Boortz?). Ron Paul's stance on the war on Islamic head choppers is unpopular in the conservative movement right now. The fact that even FauxNews, supposedly "Fair and Balanced," didn't want him to be part of the Republican presidential debates demonstrates just how much this man is despised.

On a personal note, I have questioned my vote for Ron Paul and my support of him on a regular basis. I have questioned whether our occupation in Iraq is really helping to stem the tide of terrorism. I have wondered if Ron Paul really is as crazy as some people have said (the short answer is no). I have even pondered as to whether I just support the lost causes for the sake of supporting lost causes.

I always come to the conclusion that I am supporting Ron Paul because of his hardline stances on all the bullshit that Congress pulls. He was never the perfect candidate for me. I would have preferred a governor-like version of Ron Paul (in that case, he probably would have won). For me it came down to picking a candidate who would secure our borders from Islamic head chopper threats or one who would continue to assume they'll stay in Iraq.

I don't know what I am going to do when the Presidential election comes around. I am thinking of just voting for a write-in candidate since no one looks like a good outcome. I can't in good conscious vote for John McCain because I don't believe that the security of our nation is at a high risk as it was back in 2004.

As for Ron Paul, I hope your influence never dies. It is my fervent hope that my generation will rise up and return this country to a simpler style of government like the founding fathers envisioned.