-
Website
http://danielmiessler.com/ -
Original page
http://danielmiessler.com/blog/ron-paul-is-not-a-great-candidate-were-just-so-in-love-with-him-that-were-not-paying-attention -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I figure his more awkward (or perhaps troubling) views on topics such as separation of church and state or funding of public education will fade away once he becomes Ron Paul the Populist and not Ron Paul the Washington Outsider.
McCain's campaign has been hopelessly depressing and futile from the start, Giuliani isn't really a conservative and is running solely on the so-called title of "America's Mayor", the aww shucks campaigns of Huckabee and Brownback have failed to realize that even evangelicals aren't gullible anymore to pandering, and Romney is just...creepy as sin.
And Fred Thompson has been the big tease reluctant to reveal that he's got nothing to say that hasn't already been said by the schmucks already in the race.
I don't see Paul flip-flopping so much as refining some of his earlier statements - this guy is savvy as hell and in spite of the media's treatment of him comes across as a legitimate alternative rather than some of the candidates on the Left (like Gravel or Kucinich) who seem eccentric just for eccentricism's sake.
The Obama frenzy is already waning (he'll probably eventually align himself with Hillary, he's proven himself green in the debates, he doesn't have the balls to go on Fox News, he's inexperienced, even the Obama girl on YouTube turned out to be some skank who didn't know anything about him that was hired by some aspiring hack/marketing firm) and has been overtaken by Paul.
The Dems have been a joke ever since taking office last November making these symbolic resolutions that don't mean a damn thing; and even with overwhelming public support they're impotent.
Even as I feel reluctant to fly the Ron Paul flag high and proudly, I salute you on having that bumper sticker.
I thought it was funny as hell the other day whenever I was parked illegally for about 6 hours...Sure as hell I'd get a ticket...
I walked towards my vehicle, saw some vague piece of paper under the windshield wiper...Instantly sure I'd be contributing another 10 or 20 bucks to City Hall...
Only to find a Ron Paul brochure when I'm the last person that needs to be informed about this guy.
Have faith, because I think all of this collective enthusiasm will lead to something or other; if not directly his election to public office at least an awakening of people tired of the current system.
And it's nice to read an articulate RP supporter online; stuff like "I''ll definately vote for you Mr.Paul becaause you support weed and prolife!!!" on YouTube and MySpace is discouraging at times.
The example that you gave claiming that Ron Paul does not support the Separation of Church and State is a distortion from the camp of people the believe that freedom of Religion also means Freedom from Religion. The idea of Religion expressed in the constitution was not to ban the expression of religion from the public sphere, but also to not sponsor through the State like the Church of England was a State Sponsored institution. Ron Paul even in the example that you gave is not advocating the creation of a national church, but rather a peaceful co-existence with religion.
Yes he's against the Federal government tampering with education because there is no express constitutional authority for the Federal Government to meddle in Education. Just because the Federal Government is out of the subsidation of Student loans, does not mean that there would no longer be student loans or scholarships, they would just no longer be subsidized by the Federal Government, but their would be nothing preventing the State from helping students obtain loans.
Of course, he's not for national healthcare, because there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes congress to create something like national health care. The individual States could create thier own version of a health insurance program, but a national program would make people too dependant on the Federal Government, and would not provide options for individuals who want something different than what the government offers.
Global warming is a scam and there is plenty of evidence that contrificts the assumptions by the IPCC. Since the guy does have a serious scientific background in Science being a medical doctor and all I think that he is alittle more credible than someone like Al Gore who has no back ground in science.
All in all there is nothing illogical about Dr. Pauls views if you read the constitution and are familar with the principles that lead to its creation. Dr. Paul is not a modern democrat, he is very much a Republican who believes in the rule of law binding the powers of the Federal Government with the constitution of the United States. If you believe that a politician's only principles should be popular opinion and getting re-elected, then Ron Paul and the libertarians in general are not for you go back to the democrats, but if you believe in freedom from government, liberty to live your life the way that you want, low taxes and minimal foriegn policy stay in Ron Paul's camp, because I assure you that Dr. Paul will not change.
Simply put, there is a world of difference between what one legally can do, and what one morally should do. Legally, I can protest against inter-racial marriage; morally, I should not. Since the government can only tell you what is legal, it is obvious that some outside entity must provide guidance as to what is moral.
Secondly, federally controlled education has been a mess. He's not suggesting that we should let the poor fend for themselves, he just believes that we should return control of education to those with the most vested interest in its efficacy: individuals, communities, and states.
Third, of course he's against national health-care: it's a horrible idea. I don't have the time to go into all the reasons why, but the fact that it's unconstitutional, provides little to no accountability, and strains our already thinly stretched tax dollars are a good starting point.
Finally, he has said many times that he is against abortion, but doesn't think that it's the role of the federal government to intervene. Constitutionally, as president, he'd have less power to prohibit abortions than you or I.
I think one of the main difficulties people have with Ron Paul is separating his personal views from his political views. I don't really care if personally he thinks it's immoral to eat meat (he doesn't just using it as an example), as long as he recognizes that the government has no right to force me to do the same.
Second, I think Ron Paul supporters should seriously consider what a Ron Paul presidency would actually look like. Given his history in the House of Representatives, would he continue his Dr. No reputation and veto legislation he disagrees with based on his restrictive view of the constitution? Assuming Democrats hold power in the congress, for example, would viable health care legislation be vetoed by President Ron Paul?
On the flip side, much of his radical libertarian prescriptions are unlikely to gain much support from congress. His ideas are far more radical than Bush's social security privatization plan, which flopped. It seems like Ron Paul has the potential to be the ultimate lame-duck president, from the second he got into office. With everything wrong with the current administration, can America afford that?
I'd assume he'd want to get some things done. Would he simply appoint people in cabinet positions that would purposely fail to do their department's job (especially with the regulatory agencies) to get what he wants done? Would he use executive orders to change policies to his liking? That's a terrible way to run a government, too. Ron Paul supporters MUST ask these questions. Otherwise, he's just making promises he has absolutely no way of keeping.
I think Ron Paul has benefited too much from internet hype and the popularity of effective propaganda (9-11 truth stuff, Aaron Russo's freedom to fascism, etc.) that oversimplify issues and exaggerate the extent to which our liberties are being taken away. I had a lengthy discussion today with a Ron Paul supporter about these things. She seemed to be more on the left than a libertarian, and found her agreeing with most of what I said. I recommended Kucinich. I think everyone would benefit by evaluating their own political opinions. If you're a libertarian, Ron Paul's your best bet. If you're on the political left, I prefer Kucinich (and actually, he and Gravel are actually more libertarian in some respects, given their place on the political compass). Other democrats are also campaigning on the environment and health care, and are for getting us out of this war too.
Many words. Apologies.
-e
Jesus.
This Johnnyb is a damn jackass and leaves me feeling cheerful that I haven't fully signed on to this whole Ron Paul thing yet.
Where the federal government is meant to shine is disputes between the states and internationally. I may be the oddest person in the world in my thoughts about politics, but I'd be happy to have a very conservative federal government (in the classic sense of conservative) with increasingly liberal governments as things reach closer to home. What's good for California, might not be good for Illinois or Arkansas. Good for New York might not make Utah happy.
There were some very wise things done in the design of the federal government, and, unfortunately, many of them have been dismantled. The House was meant to carry the will of the people to the federal government while the senate was meant to carry the will of the states. ... but now I'm going to stop before wandering too far off topic.
I've gone to school in the West Coast, East Coast and the Southeast. I can tell you that all the text books are lies. Most of the history in schools is wrong and Government mandated. You'd be better off home schooling and using the internet. And if you fear that and think you can't teach someone what you should have, supposedly, already learned, you proved how ignorant you are and you have failed as a human being.
So where does this great Government subsidized education come in...
As for healthcare... in the current atmosphere of our legal system and the overall effect of our healthcare systems, yes, federal healthcare is both inevitable and the correct course. But it's not something we want our government taking care of, ultimately, and we should move towards that ideal.
In my opinion, public education does much more harm than good. Primary school is abysmal; colleges are becoming less and less useful and relevant. And again, it's ultimately not something we want in the hands of government.
What's next, letting the government run our postal system? This is starting to get out of hand guys.
If you are looking at Ron Paul as a liberal democrat who happens to be running on the Republican ticket, then you are doomed to be sorely disappointed. If you dislike free market economics, buy like the idea of a big all powerful national government managing all sorts of minute aspects of your private life, then Ron Paul is not the candidate for you.
If you think that murdering the unborn is a constitutional right, and the tax payers should pay for it through a socialized health care program then Ron Paul is not the candidate for you.
If you like the idea of a limited Federal Government based on the Constitution of the United States then Ron Paul is your guy. If you think that the Constitution is more of a suggestion that can be followed or ignored based on popular opinion, then Ron Paul is not your guy.
Ever since the New Deal the Constitution has been existing in exile and the government of the United States followed its natural inclination to become a large centralized empire bending to the will of whatever popular opinion might be at the time. Today we have the New Republicans who believe in Big Government Nationalism and social conservatism, while on the otherside we have liberal socialists who do not believe in the rights of an individual to manage their own personal affairs in any meaningful way and want to deprive the States and local communities of their own sense of self determination while passing a sweeping social agenda from Washington. Individual Liberty cannot exist under either the Republicans or the Democrats, and already the institutions established over the last 70 years in the united States have become so overbearing that they deserve to be dynamited and purged from the American System because they do not work and they are unconstitutional and unAmerican, and serve to do absolutely nothing but make us less prosperous and less free.
If we do not turn from the present course offered by the Socialist Democrats and Nationalist Big Government Republicans then were are headed for a fate no better than the Nazis or Commies that we fought in the last century. The idea of liberty is already fatally sick and will soon be dead, and I personally do not know whether I will laugh or cry, when this nation finally crashes and burns.
Ron Paul is the sole salvation from our ultimate destruction, and the only path to a return to a constitutional Republican Government. For those of you who have read and understand Ayn Rand, Ron Paul is John Galt, and liberty is the only solution.
P.S. Please excuse my typos, spelling and gramatical errors.
Interesting article. One thing to remember which might put your worries to rest is that if (and i hope when) Dr. Paul is elected 44th President of the United States, he wouldn't be able to will all of his ideas into law. Even Bush hasn't got his way the whole time! As Dr. Paul is a strong believer in the Constitution and the balance of Power / 3 branches of Government, Dr. Paul would work with Congress, and listen to the American people unlike our current Administration.
Taking one of your points for example: we have had several pro-life Presidents since roe vs. wade and yet it hasn't been overturned.
Your comment that he may be "too extreme to be president" is in fact counter to both libertarion and Independent thinking. [I'm assuming you are a libertarian/independent] Our corrupt two-party system is great at producing watered-down candidates without extreme thinking, for that matter without thinking at all!
If you could change Dr. Paul's beliefs to match yours or mine or anyone else's beliefs exactly, he would still be considered by others to be extreme or in other words, too idealistic to be President.
The upside of Dr. Paul (smaller federal government, flat tax, smart foreign policy) greatly outweighs your concerns compared to who else is running for Office in 2008.
One of my favorite quotes about Dr. Paul, "You're working for the most honest man in Congress." That was John McCain speaking to Kent Snyder in 1988.
Can you imagine having an honest President for once!
I for one am fed up with our american-anglo trash Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? monarchy. Let's pass a law no more Bush's or Clinton's can be President.
University Education would still be funded by the State and individual student tuition.
Really nothing much would change except the interest rate on student loans would go up, and more control of the schools would be returned to the community and the State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#Newslette...
Those comments ended up in his personal newsletter, but he claims he did not make them. There is a good chance that he is denying he made them because he knows they are political suicide at the national level.
"black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
indicates that he has racist opinions that could change his political beliefs. While there are white young criminals, his opinion that black youth are somehow different would bias his view.
After eight years of a president who has ignored black America, I want change.
When Ron Paul says he doesn't want "the federal government" doing something, what are his opinions on it being done by state governments? For example, the federal government doesn't provide elementary education at all today (there are grants, but they're in the low single digits for most school budgets).
So is he an extreme libertarian in that *no* government should be providing elementary education, or just a federalist in that the federal government shouldn't?
Besides, Ron Paul is the most consistent politician that I have ever heard in my life and that statement sounds so out of character for him, and violates a fundamental principle in libertarian thought in that all people are EQUAL under the law.
Since there is nothing in Ron Paul's history that would suggest that he supports such a view and he has publically denied that he made that statement, then I think that we have every reason to believe that Ron Paul is telling us the truth. His character is such that he tends to defend his beliefs even if they are not popular amongst conservatives or even his fellow libertarians, such as his stand on abortion as most Libertarians are pro-choice, and only a minority of us, myself included, are pro-life.
Right now you can still voice your opinion and concerns about most things (Bush did put out that Executive Order to silence those against the war), but just think how it would be if you couldn't speak out about such things as "global warming". Even though Ron Paul himself believes that it's "overblown" he wouldn't try to silence those that think it's a major concern.
As far as the Ds and Rs... Ron is the best. However, I realize that some people out there vote by the party and not by the issues, which I personally believe is a stupid thing to do (note: the act is stupid, not the person) but if you feel you must vote Dem. then it should be Kucinich or Gravel.
Most importantly though, EVERYONE should do their own research. This doesn't mean believe or disbelieve everything as soon as you hear/see it, it means research EVERYTHING. Research the positive because you want to be sure you're not just spouting someone else's opinions or propaganda or the candidates "spin", etc. Research the negative for all the same reasons but also because you might just learn something you didn't know.
Here's an example... I thought that all the talk about the CFR was just a bunch of fear mongering that had little basis in fact and I was going to research it, get all the facts down, and show how our government doesn't follow their suggestions and that just because you're in the government and a member doesn't mean you're working towards one world government, NWO, NAU, etc.
Instead I found out that all of it is true, sad, but true. I also found out, and am still finding out, that there are more "organizations" like the CFR (Council of Foreign Relations) working towards the same goals. Now I'm called a "conspiracy theorist"... there comes a point when you are given so much evidence that you have no choice but to drop the "theorist". Anyone who has really done their research can't say that it's a theory anymore.... and most of the candidates are members... Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, and potential candidate Al Gore. In my opinion, being a member of the CFR is just another huge mark against an already damaging history and policy for those candidates.
Call me what you want, but time will tell whether I'm right or wrong, and I'd rather be safe than sorry any day. :)
You words depict socialist tendencies so I would consider that you stay with the Democrooks or RepuliCONS. It doesn't matter since they are the same anyway.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that can win for America.
Paul + Gravel + Kucinich for presidents!
Ron Paul didn't have to get a loan to go to college because he was able to work his way through. What a concept!
Then, you list a bunch of the prototypical libertarian stances as more flaws. Ummm...it sounds like you're not a libertarian. And let's be clear: he for eliminating the FEDERAL education system, which would shift the responsibility back to the states.
I'm not for national health care either. I think that the idea of healthcare as being necessary is part of the problem. Why can't people afford to pay for medical services? That is the problem. The AMA and the argue companies are getting rich in their government-enforced monopoly. They've spent far too long getting rich and not being concerned with our actual wellness.
Roe v. Wade? The idea of abortion is a complicated one, and I feel that people should have the right to get one if they choose, but to pretend that it is simple is just ludicrous. Paul, as a young doctor, attended an abortion. The baby was taken out of the mother and prepared to be thrown into the trash. The baby cried. Abortion is complicated.
As for global warming, I do find this one disturbing, but I'd like to think, given his clarity and honesty, that he will indeed allow himself to be swayed as more scientific evidence comes in about how all of this projects into the future.
I noticed in Paul's Google speech that he has a very warped sense of history. He claims America's first colleges were all private (as a graduate of UNC - - over 200 years old now - - I know that is not true) and more amazingly, that no American ever starved under a true 'free market' economy. Maybe if Gulianni ever presents Paul with a counter-reading list, he'll add "Grapes of Wrath." Paul also claimed that the market alone ended child labor; this is an outright lie. Child labor laws ended child labor.
Ironically, Paul seems to take the lessons of the failures of the USSR and then repeats the same fundamental mistake. The problem with Communism wasn't that government never works, but rather that blindly optimistic idealism never works. The Paul Utopia relies on a notion that putting the greed of the individual over the rights of the whole will somehow foster a vast system of charities and consumer groups. This is absurd and lacking of any historical reference.
Environmental laws are a shining example of how the libertarian utopia would fail. Some percentage of Americans will always buy the cheapest good, no matter how unethical. If the vast majority thinks that polution should be limited, why should their health and safety be so easily compromised by the poor purchasing choices of the minority? Does Paul really believe consumers will do extensive research into every single product they buy? Sounds incredibly unrealistic and inefficient. This is just one example where libertarians are so enamoured with axing legislation they just simply believe things will work out without any foundation. As Radiohead once put it, "Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's so."
While the Federal Government may indeed need to be trimmed down in some areas, the fact remains that the reason we have Social Security, labor laws, the EPA, the IRS, etc. is due to a direct need for an active government role in these areas. And although it bites libertarians in the ass, a well regulated market works a lot better than the economic anarchy Paul endorses.
I would love for Paul to please explain to me why a government the size of the U.S. cannot operate effectively but one the size of California can. Again, Paul would do himself a great favor by reading the history books. Is Paul against the Louisiana Purchase? Let's face it, the Civil War effectively ended the notion that States' rights trumped the Federal government. There is a reason that the New Deal policies remain incredibly popular - - because they work!
Mad props for Ron Paul in that he appears to say what he really thinks. It is great to have a candidate who is not beholden to special interest groups. But that one quality alone does not a great President make.
With respect to the global climate change, first I have to note that it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation about it here on the internets. I could say stuff like "I've got half a Ph.D. in chemical engineering so ya gotta believe me" and give a good hour-long lecture on the science and people will still hold up the "it's debatable!" card. That said, I find Ron's holding up of the aforementioned card to be a bit disturbing. It's good politically, because he admits he not informed. Those of us with a little sense realize, however, that global climate change isn't something to be "believed in," but is a fact, and is a fact that the leader of the world's largest contributor of greenhouse gases needs to understand.
Ok, this comment is getting a little long, so in short: I like how there are people out there really thinking about the candidates! It would behoove everyone to check out the Google interview. Also, it would behoove everyone if more candidates opened themselves up to such interviews so we could get a better idea what they really think. Paul vs. Obama 2007!
But all the other Republican candidates ALSO have all the flaws that you mention. They already don't believe in the separation of Church and State, also aren't for federally supported public education or college loans, also aren't for national health care, also against Abortion, also don't believe that the evidence for man-made global warming is convincing.
The reason that people like Ron Paul, flawed as he is, is that going into the general election, there's a 50/50 chance that the candidate that will win will be a Republican. We'd rather that person be the Republican who's the LEAST crazy.
Ron Paul is the Lesser of 11 Evils.
No, he doesn't want federally-funded this that and the other. That's what makes him a libertarian. It's balanced by radically lower taxes. But before worrying about it too much, remember he has to get all that by Congress. Foreign policy is where his biggest impact will be.
Global warming, yeah, I don't like that part either. But he said something in one his interviews that made me feel better about it: "But if global warming is real, well the best thing we can do about it is what I want to do anyway: Stop subsidizing the oil industry, and stop using our military to protect our oil supplies around the world, which keeps the price of oil artificially low and makes alternative fuels unable to compete."
I think the slow implementation of these changes is the key. I can remember back to when I was a kid and many things were taken care of by the states. We had a much better society then then we do now. No, not everything was perfect and it never will be no matter what you do but i sure would like to have the freedom to breath and speak again.
I guess my most major concern would be the transition period to help relieve people's fears. People are most afraid of what they don't understand and most of the people who would remember the days of state's rights type government are now gone. JMHO
5
Incorrect and misleading. He believes religion can coexist with government. freedom of religion. Not being a part of the government.
"He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education"
Yeah, he would leave it up to the states to decide funding for education.
"He’s Not For National Health Care"
Let me ask you, do you really believe Medicare or Medicaid is working? If so, I have story I want to sell.
"He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA"
What makes you think states cannot have these groups? You need to realize that FDA is really a big corporation- it is being paid off by big industry like pharmaceutical companies.
"He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned"
VERY misleading and faulty. Ron Paul is pro-life but believes the federal government has no business in making such decisions about abortion. It is up to the states to decide on abortion. I think this is fair.
"He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing"
Well, there are some scientists too who don't believe in it. Are they schills? Regardless, he would curb CO2 emissions by regulating Big Oil and their influence around the world. And in terms of pollution, he would effectively help clean it up due to the concept of private property- say a river or some sort of land mass runs through your property. You see that it is polluted- you have every right to go to court a sue to clean it up.
One last note, I am a registered democrat and pro-choice and believe in Global Warming. Yes, Ron Paul has some flaws but you over exaggerate them and do not put them in perspective.
Are you sure this blog is not a hit piece?
Roe is bad law, actually, it isnt law at all. Judges shouldn't create laws, they should interpret the ones that are written. No where in the Constitution is there a protection for abortion and therefore unless you make an amendment, it is a states right to regulate.
All the things he is arguing against, are essentially arguments against FEDERAL control, not against having these things at the state level. Also, congress would have to approve a lot of the major overhalls that he would like to make happen. Also, he said yesterday that this all can't happen at once. It would have to be a gradual movement in that direction. Example, you couldnt do away with the Fed the day he got elected. He would just allow other money to compete with the federal reserve and allow people to decide which one they wanted to use.
Good call by Fred. Ron Paul was not and never will be a liberal and no you can not pick and choose. If you let big daddy government take care of you then you are within their control and thus not free at all.
I would like to point out one more item. Pick up a dictionary or a high school government book and look up the word "libertarian". Read. Read again. And if you still have questions ask somebody before writing an article pointing out your ignorance.
You have been listening to the wrong things Ron says. If you pay attention he keeps reiterating the point that " he doesn't want to make policy, or laws for the citizens". In his ideal government he would get the FEDERAL government (ie. the legislative executive and judicial branch) out of your home. Laws that would really affect you on a daily basis would be enacted in your local areas. If you for example lived in the "Bible Belt" in North central Texas, you would probably have more laws closely related to religion and their morals. If you for example lived in Las Vegas, the laws would be completely different and probably would have no basis in the Bible. If you didn't like the basic laws in your area you could move to a community that had morals and beliefs more in line with what you believe in.
Remember just because Ron Paul is running for President, don't think he is planning on ruling your life and making new laws for you to follow.....thats the beauty of Ron Paul, he wants to get the FED out of your life (like it says in the constitution). If you need more help go here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constit...
and re-read the constitution. And then you will have a better understanding of what Ron Paul is truly wanting to do as our PResident.
The issues you write about are not his flaws, they are his traits.
Government programs only SOUND good. It's been proven for the past 50 years that in practice it doesn't work well. You are asking a bunch of lawyers to provide you with the best education and healthcare, thats about like having your car worked on by a shrink, and then wondering why the pills didn't fix your oil leak.
You also assume the government can make better choices with your life than you can. I personally do not subscribe to that thought and think the best person to choose my path in life is me.
Not to mention the fact you are just wrong on many points. Such as global warming. All the planets in our solar system are warming up, that is a fact. Jupiter and Saturn actually put off more energy than they get from the sun, thats another fact. Scientists only agree the earth is warming up, not on the causes. However, if the reason is because of our treatment of the earth, then Ron Paul already has the appropriate answer, and it's called property rights and has a more logical reason than global warming to go back to that. Nobody has the right to pollute your property. Such things should be a crime, yet the current politicians really just legalize pollution through regulations so they get to decide who gets to pollute your environment(based on money mostly). Nobody should have the right to pollute your environment and that is what Ron Paul stands for.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1slo0cGKAYc
Politicians who only the constitution until they have a better idea is what got us in so much trouble in the first place.
Be careful, you wrote an article talking about the "sense" of certain policies. But you may be espousing the same principle as GW when he says, "The constitution is Just a Goddamn Piece of Paper!"
Many of the most brilliant and yet self sacrificing individuals ever wrote the constitution. They wrote it because they knew history. and they knew that the number one enemy of freedom is government. And unless it is kept in check it will grow out of proportion and consume its own citizens.
Just think about the principle behind the income tax... It may make sense at first. I pay the government and they give me the services I need. But the principle behind the enforcement of that tax says "There is no private property". The Income tax is a rent by which the government "allows" us to continue to use our property and our possessions. Don't pay the rent, and they will take it all. That is not the free America the founders wanted. That is feudalism. Which is why the founders abolished that kind of tax from the beginning, in the constitution.
If you study the constitution and you realize the principles they were fighting for, and some of them died for. There you can see the wisdom of the document which limits the government and keeps it from enslaving it's people.
I am EXTREMELY opposed to Federal funding of the public schools. Eliminate the entire federal DOE and lower taxes. Let the states and *especially the municipalities* fund the public schools because education curricula and practice is inherently local.
Please be sure to date the global warming quotes. While I disagree with him, the previous IPCC report was only 65% confident that global warming was man made vis a vis the most recent IPCC report which was 95% confident.
The rest of your points I agree with.
I'm afraid I'm absolutely in support of this.
Now, these services most definitely should exist, and you are absolutely right in that it's naive to believe "the market" will fix things.
but they should exist and function at a city and STATE level.
that's really how our country was originally envisioned. A federation of independent states, governing themselves as they saw fit, but coming together for one purpose and one purpose only: defense.
So sure, there needs to be a federal military.
But EVERYTHING else should be handled at a more local level, with the state being the top authority.
Think about how this would fix things. First off, a lot of small governments are going to be more resistant to corruption, and less wasteful, than one big honking pool of money with no oversight. Secondly, there are plenty of instances where a law that works for one group of people simply doesn't work for another.
Abortion is a great example. From what I've read, Ron Paul's political (not personal) stance on abortion is that it simply should not be the federal governments decision. Let the states decide. Abortion can be legal in the blue states and illegal in the red states, and people can choose to live where they see fit.
So for me...Ron Paul 2008. Let him tear down the federal gov, until there is almost nothing left. The states will step up and take over the services worth keeping.
Is there any part of the constitution left that the Federal Government respects anymore? Ron Paul is the only candidate, for decades, who truly takes his oath to uphold the constitution seriously. And he understands that if you need to change something fundamental, you must push for an amendment, which is what he would like to do for birthright citizenship. If he were any other candidiate, he would just sign an executive order declaring that birthright citizenship is abolished. We can't accept that sort of thinking anymore.
I think "WE" have answered your article where you INCORRECTLY state "WE are just so in love with him that WE're not paying attention".....................go back to Hillary, Edwards,Obama, Guilliani, McCain and Thompson and make your report.
WE are truly knowledgable, and won't fall for this "Hit Piece".
Go ahead and send them what you have learned here today and how you have been schooled. You can start off your letter to your bosses like this..........................
We the people.....
Ron Paul has not offered any ways to change the government during his candidacy. All he says is things should be like *this*. THAT is his main weakness. No sane individual thinks the FDA should be gone tomorrow. Everything is phased in and phased out and he would like to phase this stuff out. He just doesnt talk abotu how to achieve his goals.
“Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this process. As a Congressman, I’ve done a number of things to support environmentally friendly policies. I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending, I’ve opposed foreign wars for oil, and I’ve spoken out against government programs that encourage development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood insurance.”
“I strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty. Providing for a clean environment is an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn’t do that. Instead it’s placed the burden on the United States to cut emissions while not requiring China – the world’s biggest polluter - and other polluting third-world countries to do a thing. Also, the regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the regulations don’t apply. It’s bad science, it’s bad policy, and it’s bad for America. I am more than willing to work cooperatively with other nations to come up with policies that will safeguard the environment, but I oppose all non-binding resolutions that place an unnecessary burden on the United States,”
“Rest assured that the UN is absolutely serious about imposing a global tax. In fact, it has been discussing a global currency for years. The “Tobin Tax”, named after the Yale professor who proposed it, would be imposed on all worldwide currency transactions. Such a tax could prove quite lucrative for the UN.
The Tobin Tax is not the only idea being considered. Some have suggested taxing all airline travel or carbon emissions. The ultimate goal is an income tax, which will be imposed after we’ve all swallowed the concept of UN taxing authority. Fortunately, the House of Representatives passed my language, last week, in the 2007 Foreign Operations bill that prohibits the treasury from paying UN dues if the organization attempts to implement or impose any kind of tax on US citizens. But that only protects us for another year. Given the stated goals of the UN, it would be foolish to believe the idea of a global tax will go away.”
Ron Paul believes that global warming has been with us for a long time though he is somewhat skeptical that it is becoming an immanent crisis. Because he does not support any piece of legislation not specifically authorized by the Constitution, Paul votes against most bills that involve government spending or expanded government initiatives; thus he does not seek legislation to combat the global warming. Instead, he advocates reducing emissions, halting subsidies to oil companies, and altering a war-for-oil foreign policy that in itself contributes to global warming.
But as I say, don’t believe everything you see/hear. Check it all out for yourself… research Ron Paul and his history and views (the Ron Paul library is a good place to start) Find out what bills and legislation he’s tried to pass. Research the Tobin Tax. Research the UN… What is it? What is it’s goals? Where did it originate? When you hear about a bill that’s being introduced, research it for yourself and find out what it’s all about and who will profit from it the most… the citizens, the government, the organizations, or corporate businesses.
But you missed the most disturbing thing about Ron Pauls philosophy: He doesnt think the Bill of Rights should apply to the states. He thinks they only apply to the federal government (and even then under the most strict interpretation).
I think not enforcing the Bill of Rights on the states would lead to a loss of alot of freedom. It doesnt make sense to me to say that we have "inalienable rights" but then say theyre different depending on which state you live.
Perhaps you should find another candidate.
The law says the government may not establish a religion in conjunction with the state nor may it prevent people from practicing religion freely.
However, religious SENTIMENT such as thou shall not kill or steal, is well-woven throughout our civil law and thus CAN'T BE SEPARATED. The intent was not to outlaw religious sentiment.
I suppose he opposes the footbaths for Muslims to perform religious ceremonies at noon each day, that were just installed at a state U in MI recently? I don't see any objection over that.
Also, if you don't have churches, who does the charitable stuff that welfare agencies do now with YOUR MONEY? Get real. You sound like you want to outlaw religion. Even the most atheistic among us would agree that to do that would be unlibertarian.
As for not allowing the feds to interfere in education, this is a GOOD THING. I was a teacher for 40 years and I don't think the feds ever did one good thing for local education. Education should always be under local control.
Global Warming has been debunked as a hoax and merely a ploy by the UN to be able to collect a huge tax from us so they can implement world government. YOU DON'T KNOW THIS? Global Warming is the UN's 'religion'. Why don't you object to that?
This is typically over picky analysis of stuff that would not change with RP in office.
I doubt this person was a supporter in the first place.
The federal government has no Constitutional right to have anything to do with Education. How ignorant of you to assume that the federal government could do a better job than the state and local governments. Since they've usurped power the education system has worsened.
The same goes for heath care. It's not a right, and it's not defined in the Constitution. Perhaps you should read the damn thing before spouting off nonsense.
Again, the same goes for abortion. It's an issue of murder in my opinion, and unless it's comitted on federal land, it's not a federal issue. What's wrong with letting the states decide? That way the leftist wackjobs in CA and MA can go around killing babies all day long, but elsewhere we can respect life.
And consumer protection groups aren't protection groups, they're government mandated regulation which again is Unconstitutional at worst, and foolish at best if you believe it falls in the interstate commerce clause. Private industry has clearly been able to do a better job than the government given the opportunity to compete. The UL is a non-profit organization which handles electrical and fire safety, and they've managed to do it without becoming a government agency. The FDA has a poor track record for allowing unsafe drugs on the market and delaying drugs for 5-10 years that could be beneficial. How's that protecting the consumer?
And finaly, I don't believe the evidence in global warming. Not that either stance would really matter to me in choosing a president. Richard Lindzen doesn't believe it either... but I guess we should all rush to a judgement even when the scientific community can't figure out what's going on.
Guliani will win.
Why do I think this? I believe that the real powers are not the people who vote but the organizations throwing money at these campaigns (this is not so much an oversimplified conspiracy theory as much as a *collusion of very powerful people/organizations who usually get their way. For examples of collusion SEARCH "NAFTA Mexico", "Money Masters", "federal reserve privately owned", "Who Killed the Electric Car", "Freedom to Fascism", "Aaron Russo").
Where is Giuliani in the polls (as of 11 Sept 07):
http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/Articles/dail...
he's doing quite well.
Like Chris Rock said, “He’s great – in a crisis. But in real life Giuliani’s kinda like a pit bull. He’s great when you have a burglar, but if you don’t, he just might eat your kids.”
The control of the masses seems to be the on going trend in the U.S. More specifically control by reactionary fear.
*In the study of economics and market competition, "collusion" takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit.
Ron Paul 08
Also, the supreme court deciding whether a law is constitutional or not is not the federal government (the congress and the President) taking away state powers. The federal govt passing laws is different from the supreme court interpreting the constitution and enforcing it on the whole coutnry.
That's funny. I'm supporting Ron Paul because of all the things you mention as flaws. It's his foreign and anti-fed-reserve policies that I sorta disagree with (but not enough to outweigh the support.)
But never mind his policies, the main reason I support Ron Paul is that I know what his policies actually are. He is honest. He isn't going to flip-flop or become a RINO. He has a 20+ record of consistency that is unmatched. I'll take honest with a few policy flaws, over a say-anything, be-anything to get elected, then do whatever I the heck I want mug-wump.
At least if Ron Paul gets us out of the income tax, then you and I can each fund the things we want to, and the market will sort it out. Go invest your money in a private college loan fund, or in planned parenthood. You will be allowed, and you will have the money.
Cheers,
I wish this was true. The fact is that most christians have been convinced that USA & God are practically one and the same. To them belief in God and patriotism go hand in hand, pledging to the flag is a religious experience, and this country is Gods gift to Christianity.
One bomb-shell many of my fellow Christians drop their draw over is that I do not say the pledge of allegience. It's quite simple really, the bible teaches us that we can only have one master, because if we have two we will at some point have to forsake one for the other. If I pledge my allegience to the flag I am 1. Commiting idol worship and 2. saying that I will do whatever I have to for my country. This is why Christian government officials and government workers will carry out unchristian orders in the name of governement. They are just "doing their job" because they have a broken allegience. When it comes to serving their country or serving God they will choose country, because this country is Gods work in their mind.
About Ron Paul having bad points; this is true of anyone you vote for. You simply won't find anyone out there that jives in every regard. They will always have platforms that don't sit well with you. The point of Ron Paul is that he is an honest candidate. He says what he thinks is right and doesn't try to hide it when called out. If you ask him his stance on something he will give it, even if he knows his base will disagree.
This means you can trust him, and that's what makes him so likable.
I know personal responsibility is a scary idea, but once you're free the socialist policies you endorse will look like shackles to enslave you.
As far as the comment goes about the founding fathers and religion, he said that they "envisioned" a "robustly christian" America, not WANTED. There is a difference. I don't think it's too hard to imagine that the founding fathers knew that this would be a mostly Christian country (which is is).
For god's sake, have you read the IPCC report you cite?
I am sick and tired of people constantly referencing these reports as some sort of evidence of Man-Made Global Warming.
If you read the reports, as I have, you will see that the "overwhelming evidence" presented is in support of global warming. Yes, the planet does appear to be warming slightly, and there is good scientific evidence for this. However...
There is less then 2 pages in the IPCC report (IV - the commonly referenced one) that link that reality to any sort of causal, man-made scenario - and at best, there is some scant cursory evidence to support consideration of the the greenhouse gas "theory".
Global Warming != Man-Made != Greenhouse Gas Causal Reality
There is more scientific evidence to refute the greenhouse gas hypothesis as there is to support it. Period
Anyone who wants to bang a drum and point fingers can ignore the science and continue to be self-righteous... but if you really care about science, please, pay attention to the facts and deal in factual references and assertions, not more of the usual bandwagon handwaving generalities.
What I didn't know about was his views on religion and separation of church and state. Jebus! Why can't people see the damage organised, political religion is doing to this and many other countries?
I guess he's still the best of a bad bunch....
Consumer protection? Caveat emptor. Federalized education? Caveat LECTOR.
You are wrong across the board in your criticisms, and it appears that such is a product of your lack of serious study of statism and history. Or, to say it another way, the "flaws" you cite would have you laughed out of the original Congress. We need a federalized committee to approve what a retailer in your state can sell? Absurd to think they would agree with you, and I agree with THEM.
Read the Federalist Papers, and study anarcho-capitalism and the like, at least to get a baseline on where we really stand. Or risk continuing the problems we face (at MY expense, natch) with WILLFUL ignorance. You owe it to the REST of us to put in some study time, bubba.
>> "his extreme and illogical views"
It is QUITE possible his views are perfectly logical (save that he's a theist) and not extreme by any yardstick except the average dimwit American's limited understanding of the issues.
Be well.
Why should the federal government be funding education? Does Ron Paul say that if he were a governor, he would eliminate state run education? The federal government should not be in the business of taking most of your taxes, and then divvying them up to the states. It's not a matter of -defunding- education, it's a matter of downsizing the federal government, states raising taxes, and then public schools being more locally accountable.
National healthcare is a terrible idea. Why can't the states individually have their own healthcare programs? Try 50 different things, and see what works the best. National healthcare will end up being a few crony companies supplying the health plans, and the same red tape crap. This country is simply too big to amass power in the federal government. Unfortunately, people don't want to follow this idea, and want to affect as many people as they can.
The FDA isn't solely a consumer protection group. Leave the area that researches information and prevents fraud (say, selling a drug as one thing when it's really another). Get rid of the part that makes medical devices go through asinine regulations. Get rid of the part that prevents patients from getting drugs before they've been fully approved.
I would like to see Ron Paul on a ticket with Dennis Kucinich. I don't know which way, but I think it would balance it out a bit. Perhaps Ron Paul could work on demolishing these federal agencies that suck money from the states and then redistribute it, and Dennis Kucinich could work on transitioning the states to doing the right thing. Or something. Unfortunately, I think then the media would finally have something to rip Ron Paul apart over.
1. Because NONE of the electable candidates have convinced me they will actually fight to (i) regain the civil liberties I have lost to Bush & Co., or (ii) get us out of Iraq ASAP.
2. Because he is a man of principle (even when I disagree with his principles) who is not afraid to speak his mind. Our election process needs far more of that, and far, far less of pandering to the least common denominator. This broken system explains why BOTH major parties are fielding such weak, weak candidates.
3. Because enough votes for Ron Paul might at least send the message that isuues 1 and 2 are IMPORTANT and must not be ignored by the new president, whoever s/he is.
4. Because, despite all his flaws, he's the best candidate running, regardless of party.
5. Because (as others have noted), even if I'm wrong and Ron Paul is somehow elected, the checks and balances of the political process will water down Mr. Paul's effectiveness in implementing his more extreme views anyway.
In light of the weak competition, I'm willing to run the risk that Ron Paul might actually get elected. As shortsighted and unrealistic as he might be, he is still better than any of our other choices.
6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.
Doug
Aside from that, his other views are pretty inconsequential, as he leaves them up to the states to judge. When it comes to pollution, getting rid of corporate personhood would go a long way to evening the odds, though I disagree with him that total deregulation is best.
I would like Ron Paul to give us an idea of how he plans to phase in the free-market system because an immediate overhaul would be dangerous. And I would ask how he plans to work with congress on this. I wouldn't want him to be a lame duck president for his entire term.
Well, bro - as I'm out to his LA rally in a few minutes, I have to be short.
He is not at all oblivious, and if you read Mises/Rockwell/Browne (e.g.: study the libertarian school), it becomes clear that the problems facing post New Deal America run very deep. On economics alone, the reality is that we MUST contract the money supply. That means "recession", but as it is either a bitter pill now or an amputation later, I'm for taking the medicine and getting it over with.
And if one looks closely, one sees that there are MCUH more powerful trends afoot than simple electioneering. You might ask how many theists are going to be around in 20 years, instead of assuming that religion is on the upswing, because it's not. So, scratch your first point as largely moot.
Twice voted NYC teacher of the year John Taylor Gatto wrote a book called "The Underground History Of American Education" detailing the whosesale corruption of federalized education. It is beyond doubt that industrial forces lobbied the D.O.Education to teach people to be DUMBER, so that they would be satisfied with assembly-line work. Look it up. Now, as Ford-style manufacture is on it's way out (robotics), why the hell would we still approach it that way? Look at the test scores - lower and lower. Why? Look at the federal curricula - it's ALL like "my two mommies" and shit. Clearly propaganda, clearly socialist, clearly designed to reduce efficacious cognition.
How that happened is a story for another day, but there it is, the cold hard reality you say he is oblivious too.
Possibly it is we who are the well-informed ones? Maybe you can't afford to retire at 28 for academic pursuits like I did, but said pursuit has left me very, very well informed. My support of RP is thoroughly reasoned, based exclusively on objective fact (as per my nick), and intends to mitigate the hardships we are facing.\
Be well.
But a President Ron would face a very hostile Democratic congress with the net effect that not much would get accomplished. Ron Paul would probably never back down from his principles and would wear out many many veto pens. And Congress would back down sometimes but would generally fight him every step of the way.
The net effect would be that civil liberties would be mostly restored, torture would no longer be a valid policy, the illegal wars would stop and the only remaining conflict would be Afghanistan (which RP said he supported). I wouldn't expect a complete legalization of drugs but I would expect blanket pardons given at regular intervals to all non-violent drug offenders, thus decriminalizing drug use and sales nationwide.
The Democrats would successfully protect most entitlements and regulatory agencies. RP has said that his goal would be to dismantle the military-industrial complex first and then tackle the social programs later so I don't think he would fight the Democrats too much on this point.
I would like to think he would veto bills containing a heavy amount of earmarks left and right.
If Roe v. Wade was overturned, I think most states would keep it legal. A few states would try to heavily restrict it or make it illegal and would then discover a near-revolution at the polls, overturning those laws and kicking out most politicians who voted for it. In addition, I think removing abortion as an option would create an apocalypse for Republicans everywhere and they would have to confront the fact that nearly 50 percent of their own members support abortion rights and a huge majority in the voting population at large. So, ironically, overturning Roe might cause abortion to finally be enshrined as a right.
Overall, RP would be good because he would essentially represent a reset-button for how Americans view government and government's role in the world and in their lives. We'd essentially get a 'do-over' which I think we badly need.
As a "national libertarian" i say to republicans, conservatives, social conservatives, and so on: let the states choose how socially conservative and how fiscally conservative they want to be, they are more likely to be in accord to just what you want anyway.
I think it is good that states have different systems and rules, may the good policies prosper and the lousy ones fall to the wayside. As it is, with the national govt trying to dictate everything all the policies come out lousy (like a national textbook or national education standards) and i can't move away from it nor once it is entrenched (like medicare) is it easy to undo.
Sidebars:
As someone else says, dont worry too much if Ron Paul disagrees with you on some policies. It is congress who will enact the legislation. I am looking forward to a president who says "the exec branch will follow the law" and "i will let congress delcare the wars" and "i think the federal govt has too much power".
Libertarians can be annoying when they talk about no public education, don't fret that point, our discussion here should be what the federal govt should or should not do. That is why i call myself a "national libertarian" for this discussion. I might be in favor of state sponsored health care and tummy rubs, i won't say; i will only say that the federal govt should not take that responsibility.
The concept of constitutional "checks and balances" refers to balancing state power vs federal power as much as the commmonly cited three branches of the federal govt.
To say you are willing to put a bumper sticker on your car and then write a crapstastic headline about how flawed he is? comon that is a job for Bill O'Riley, not a patriot.
That aside, there would be plenty of difference between Ron Paul the ideologue and Ron Paul the president. Congress isn't going to liquidate the fed just because RP got elected.
He's the best candidate. Period.
He wants “the community” to provide education to the public.
This was my biggest problem with Ron Paul ; one which I cannot get over. I don't think abolishing fed public education is a good idea, at all. I think this government should provide more human services for it's people, and spend less on the military and global warfare. This disconnect of the federal government from the people is exactly what the top 1% would want. Think about it, their kids goto the private prep school - remember? WTF do they need the public school system for? We cannot allow this type of disconnected thinking to go on.
He wants “the community” to provide education to the public.
This was my biggest problem with Ron Paul ; one which I cannot get over. I don't think abolishing fed public education is a good idea, at all. I think this government should provide MORE human services for it's people.
I know you think they are illogical, I felt that way when I was first introduced to Libertarianism. Read up on the Libertarian views, and on economics and maybe you will better understand why he holds these views and you can better evaluate if you agree with them.
My choice is simple. Vote for change, or vote for the status quo.
I'm voting for change.
The fact of the matter is most funding and control of schools is at the state and local, not federal level. That's where it belongs.
The Department of Education is a major failure. Even before it was created, when the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was around before that Department was split into two Departments, federal involvement in education had proven to be harmful. American students went from being the best in the world in science and math before the Department was created to being among the worst in the developed world after it was created.
Since then, as federal government involvement in public education has grown to unprecedented levels, there has been no great leap of improvement. There has been no rebound.
In fact, the significant achievements and improvements that have been made can be linked to state and local, not federal, initiatives, programs and funding. This isn't surprising when you consider that different parts of the country face different challenges when it comes to public education and with different challenges come different remedies. Whenever the federal government tries to create a remedy, they use "one size fits all" approaches such as NCLB and they always fail. The reason these state and local initiatives have been successful is those at that level understand the problems and challenges their schools face and the solutions that will fix the problems and meet the challenges. Federal bureaucrats in Washington don't.
Beyond that, it's not the government's job to provide these kinds of services to you. What you're describing is Socialism, and that always fails. Whenever the government gets involved in providing a good or service that good or service always gets more expensive.
As Barry Goldwater told us, "a government that can give you everything is a government that can take it all away."
Besides, your arguments don't even address the allegations. You claim he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, but your supporting argument is that he believes in the Christian church. Well, that's pretty much irrelevant, isn't it?
And you go on like that for much too long.
This was a waste of time.
. png
As long as Ron Paul does not need money from the lobbyist, we citizens would be better off under him
The Founding Fathers envisioned a small and powerless central government, not the ridiculous monstrosity we are now enslaved with that grows stronger with every new appropriations bill and tax measure.
Life isn't Sesame Street.
Interesting article, I didn't know some of Ron Paul's positions - but then again I am not American so the domestic policy positions are not really going to have an impact on me directly.
I think Ron Paul (perhaps by fluke, perhaps by his own research) is right on his positions on anthropogenic global warming. I have done a lot of readings into anthropogenic global warming - and really the quality of the research and representation of the research by the IPCC is pretty dismal.
A couple of links for you to read - if you have time.
Which gives a good analysis on journal paper positions
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Sciencele...
A well researched document that looks at the many different areas of research that has been taken in anthropogenic global warming:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi...
Just as a side note - I use to think any warming was likely to be manmade pollution induced .... which peaked my interested to look into what the research evidence was, which eventually after the education had me changing my position.
Interesting topic - if you have the time.
regds
stuart
http://www.coyoteblog.com/Skeptics_Guide_to_Ant...
cheers,
stu
The Department of Education, and its products like "No Child Gets Ahead" are the very reason why control of the schools need to return to the community in which these schools exist. I don't know why people think the politicians and bureaucrats who promote and work under the Department of Education are professional educators. They are NOT! They are bean counters and politicians. The Department of Education is not just funding and providing social programs, they are designing national curriculum based on political nonsense instead of the world as best we know it. Just look at the whole stupid debate over creationism Vs. evolution. From a scientific standpoint creationism is merely wild speculation, not based on any facts. Yet thanks to the DoE we are teaching children wild speculation as if it were a fact.
Ever wonder why medical care is so expensive? Ever wonder why pharmaceuticals are so expensive? You can place 75% of that blame on the federal government. Any idea how much the pharmaceutical companies spend lobbying the government? All that cost is passed on to the consumer. Then the government is expected to subsidize the pharmaceutical companies' R&D bids with taxpayer money. If we remove the federal government from the equation, the lobbyists will be in the unemployment line, and pharmaceutical prices will drop.
Really look into what happens when the federal government tries to make an industry better through regulation, and inadvertently creates a government sustained monopoly. The result is the same as when the government decides to make the world better regulation foreign nations with our military.
But then I am a Libertarian. The only issue I don't 100 percent agree on is abortion, I just can force my views on others.
But then that is why I voted for him 19 years ago and have been pushing him since I first found out he was running back in January.
Funny. I only count a whopping grand total of one reference to God in either document. And it is in the context of "nature's God".
It amazes me how many people think our founding fathers were Christians.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
It's hard enough beating down 100 years of economic ignorance among the people only to have it dusted off and rebuffed by an actual Ron Paul supporter. I don't even know where to begin. It makes me tired and angry just thinking about the amount of explanation necessary. Seriously, stop being afraid. That's the emotion that has started every problem. Trust people to solve each others' problems without force or bureaucracy.
I will take this, however, as a call to other Paul supporters to be sure you have counterarguments ready for people who ARE economically ignorant or have taken something he has said out of context.
Vote Green!
1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State -
Ron Paul is referring to the true history of this nation. The US Supreme Court said in "The Church of the Holy Trinity v. US, 143 US 457" that this is a Christian nation. This case was also quoted by the Supreme Court again in the 1980's or 1990's. The freedoms that we are enjoying today are a direct result of the Christian faith of the past, which stemed from the religious liberty of the republic of Rhode Island. There is much history to prove this point, but time doesn't allow it.
2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education -
When the "public" schools are funded by the feds, they cease to be "public." The one who pays the bill calls the shots. The public schools are supposed by controlled by the local community, not some arrogant fart in Washington who believes he or she knows what everyone else is supposed to study. Ideally, all education should be placed into private enterprise. It would be done cheaper and better when parents pay for their desired education. My wife and I homeschooled five children and yet were FORCED to pay for the "public" education through property taxes.
3. Yeah, That Means No Federal College Loans -
He who pays the bill controls the mind. If the hotbeds of socialism (i.e. state education) had to rely upon the free market, they would be bankrupted. Liberalism does not pay its own way. Only principled conservatives pay their own way. Liberalism takes from another through taxation to bride leeches to follow them.
4. He’s Not For National Health Care - ...and neither is the constitution. I do not have a health insurance, nor do I want it. I am a health nut that takes personal responsibility for my body. Government will ruin health care far worse than it already is. If the government gets out, free market steps in and does a more efficient job at reduced prices.
5. He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA - A private group may replace this nonsense. Government is not the solution, it is the problem.
6. No More Federal Environmental Protection. If GiantFooCorp Does Something Wrong, Sue Them - The EPA has ruined many innocent people's lives because of the social nonsense. I know of personal cases of their abuse.
7. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned - He may desire to do this, but he cannot get on the Supreme Court and change their minds. Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion. The Court stated that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the unborn child, BUT THE STATES DO. If any state decided to pass a law against abortion, it could. Read the case for yourself rather than rely upon hearsay of others' interpretation of the case.
8. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing - The purported evidence for global warming is bull crap. In the 1980's we were terrorized with an ice age, but someone turned up the thermostat and now it's global warming. Darwinianism that controls the "science" community is a religious faith of intellectual fools. Nobel Prize winner George Wald made the following admission:“There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or, a supernatural God…. There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility . . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.” George Wald, the evolutionist, finally evolved into a corpse in 1997, still a man of faith, believing the impossible, because he was prejudiced against God. And it had nothing to do with evidence; it was a choice based on personal preference—blind and stupid faith.
I rest my case. David Allen
Ummm...PLEASE take the sticker off of your car. PLEASE stop talking about Ron Paul's campaign. With "supporters" like you, he needs no enemies.
And, BTW, SPEAK FOR YOURSELF! Do NOT speak for other supporters. YOU obviously do not understand the issues of which you speak, therefore you assume we all do not understand? And that we are all blinded by our love? You are condescending AND uneducated...quite a combo.
Please educate yourself. Most of your assertions are twisted and off-base. They will only serve to ERODE support for Ron Paul.
Thanks for nothing bub!
1. It's not wrong of me to both think that Ron Paul is brilliant, refreshing, great for America's political system AND think him significantly off-base on a number of issues. Advanced societies don't squelch criticisms of the things they love.
2. Very few people are responding to my main point, i.e. that he is either providing an insufficient vision for how to keep millions of people from extreme suffering when these programs are discontinued OR he is failing to COMMUNICATE this vision. Either way there is a problem, as is very clear from how popular this piece was on Reddit (a pro-Paul venue).
I'll say again -- I do not disagree with most aspects of Dr. Paul's vision of where the country SHOULD BE. My issue is with how he intends to get us there. And ultimately I think this dialog is positive because it's a) among his SUPPORTERS, and b) early in the race. This way we can get this stuff hashed out among ourselves before we go prime time.
But as I said in the piece I'm ultimately still for him regardless. I say a vote for Paul is a vote for change, and at this point that's good enough for me. I'd just like to see the game tightened up, that's all.
If I (and all the redditers that voted for this piece) are wrong about his positions then he's failed by not communicating his positions well. And if we're right about his positions then he needs to explain and justify them better. Either way we have work to do before the elections.
Did you ever stop and think that it may be just a little bit inconsistent to be against waging war against the people of another country, but whole-heartedly support and advocate perpetual aggression against your own fellow citizens?? Every thing the government 'does' is a command. Obedience to these commands is ultimately enforced by the barrel of a gun. To demand that the government 'do' something (fund your education, pay your medical bills, feed you, cloth you, make sure other people don't hurt your feelings, wipe your a$#, etc) is really to demand that the government use its guns to make your neighbor pay for these things. Why not just grab a pitchfork, head over to the neighbors' and rob them yourself?
If all these things are really legitimate, then it is also entirely legitimate for the government to 'do' all the things that you disagree with (bomb foreign countries, subsidize big business, throw you in jail for doing drugs, outlaw abortion, force a religion on you, etc).
Food for thought...
In regards to your response, my point is that claiming that he has said nothing of the "millions who would suffer" without Federal programs assumes that:
a) It is the Federal programs that are alleviating suffering rather than creating it.
b) There will be any serious fallout at all.
You are right that he may not be communicating them well enough, and goodness knows that we need everyone we can get on our side. He has said on many occasions that he would attack corporate welfare before social welfare, which in my book is good enough.
Government is the cause of most of our problems, not the solution. To attack RP because he is in favor of dismantling Government is to miss the point of why that is a good thing and why you should vote for him in the first place.
I'm "definately" voting for Ron Paul now!!!!
It's time we got our Liberties back.
Leaving Iraq is the ONLY choice we have to avoid worldwide terrorism aka WWWIII. 95% of all suicide bombing is in retaliation to an occupying military, not fundamentalism:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html
Ron Paul will be our next President. I hope it's not too late.
If there is no oath followed, there is no foundation.
Observe the flip flopping front runners of both major parties.
I'd like to take a few minutes to respond to your concerns.
He doesn't believe in the separation of church and state
This isn't quite accurate. Paul believes that Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Note the emphasis on Congress. A careful reading of the history of the Ratification will show you that the Framers wrote the First Amendment to prohibit the national government from infringing on the enumerated rights. They relied on individual state constitutions to determine the attitudes of the various states. You may disagree with this position (as do I), but Paul is correct in his interpretation of Original Intent.
He's not for Federal Public Education / no federal student loans
Yes, this is true, and in the first part, he represents the traditional Republican position. Reagan, the most brilliant Republican rhetorician, said that he would tear down the Dept of Education and sow salt in the earth where it stood. (It's a shame that Reagan's policies rarely matched his rhetoric, partly due to a Democratic Congress.) As we have seen with No Child Left Behind and mandatory testing, federal funding comes with federal control. The removal of the Dept of Ed would return education to the state and local level, where parents could exercise more control over their kids' education. As for student loans, Paul's position is simple and consistent with the tenets of liberty: Why should people who are unable, or who choose not to go to college be forced to subsidize your education?
He's not for national health care
That should read, "He's not for socialized medicine," and bravo for that. He is also not for government-subsidized, corporate-controlled health care. As an OB/GYN, Paul knows first-hand that government intervention leads to rising prices and a deterioration of the doctor-patient relationship. When independent (as in non-AMA member) doctors like Paul are telling us that government interference in health care is bad for health care, we ought to pay attention.
He would abolish the FDA
Yes, it's true that Paul believes, philosophically, that we do not need the FDA. Given that this particular agency is bought and paid-for by the pharmaceutical lobby, represses the use of "alternative" or "natural" medical treatments, and prevents patients from volunteering for potentially life-saving but experimental treatments, who can blame him? Having said that, Paul has made clear that his presidency would have priorities, and that the American people must be "weaned off" the addictive drug of Big Government. It's not like he's going to shut the doors on the FDA on January 21st, 2009, and given the attitude of Congress, it is unlikely that he will succeed fully in ridding us of these burdensome and harmful regulatory agencies.
Rant about the impossibility of private property rights to protect the environment
While it is true that we would need more robust laws regarding private property rights, I think you overestimate the ability of lawyers to help their clients get away with murder, Johnny Cochran notwithstanding. Do you not think that the tobacco industry had some of the most expensive lawyers money can buy? How about Microsoft in their anti-trust suit? For that matter, how about AT&T, Alcoa, Standard Oil, and the host of other companies prosecuted under anti-trust law? When the law is clear (or, in the case of anti-trust, sufficiently unclear), no amount of sophistry on the part of a defense attorney can alter it, particularly in civil cases that are determined by a judge and not a jury.
He's anti-abortion
Yes, this is an issue where I disagree with Ron Paul. As much as I hate to admit it, I am closer to Giuliani's stance that the question "should ultimately be between a woman and her doctor." However, I do agree with Paul that the abortion issue is most emphatically not one for the federal government to decide, and although I believe that the principles behind Roe v. Wade would make a good (state) law, the Supreme Court had to seriously torture some "implied" rights from the Constitution in order to make that ruling, and Roe is probably the clearest example of so-called "legislation from the bench." As a strict constructionist, I think the Court overstepped it's bounds in the Roe verdict, and it should be reversed simply in the name of keeping the federal government within it's proper sphere of influence.
He thinks the case for man-made global warming is overblown
Ok, first off, I'm not a climatologist. I don't have the evidence, nor would I know how to interpret the evidence if I did have it. However, Henny-Penny environmentalists like Paul Erlich have been saying that the sky is falling since at least the 1960s, only they used to do so under the guise of "Global Cooling." Then, in the 1970s, Erlich and his ilk were predicting massive, global famine within seven years. If people are slow to take these people seriously, it's because the environmentalists have consistently been crying wolf for quite some time. I can understand skepticism of people like this; I myself am quite skeptical of people like this. However, as I have heard Paul say, there are common-sense steps we can take to reduce our carbon footprint and pollution levels without dismantling the Western industrial economy.
In summary, some of your criticism is spot-on, and some of it is simply misinformed. I'm glad that you haven't let your personal issues with some of Ron Paul's stances turn you off completely; after all, the only time most of us will fully agree with a candidate is if we run for office ourselves. I hope I've at least given you something to think about, and I welcome you to contact me if you'd like to discuss any of these issues further. I love a good intellectual sparring match. :-)
One of the metrics you're ignoring her is the fact that government intervention in the market CREATES the big, powerfui corporations and concentrates market power in industries. This is almost always the result of a strong regulatory states; higher-cost competitors get squeezed and shut down, and this concentrates market power and actually ends up increasing the profits of the firms left. Furthermore, the corporate welfare state (subsidies, special tax exemptions, etc.) is what is driving most of this mess. If you remove the government support of these large and artificially powerful firms and liberalise the market they operate in to more competition, then their ability to abuse the public decreases drastically.
In so far as the reliance on consumer reports as a replacement for some of the regulatory state is concerned... why not? This would create an incentive for people to become more self-sufficient, which is what our society needs. Sure, transactions costs dictate that many would suffer under this regime at first years ago, but transaction costs have been reduced TREMENDOUSLY by the emergence of the internet, which has become the great equalizer in a number of ways in society.
The FDA (through Rumsfield) legalized Asperatame but Stevia is banned as a sweetener. Prescriptions drugs are monopolized, even ragweed allergy extracts are considered a controlled substance (forced to go through an allergist). The list of BS goes on and on. They even protect companies from lawsuits.
Public schools train kids to be subservient, compliant employees and citizens. Many people pay for private schools.
Scholarships, non-profit charity, and lower taxes could replace school loans, and state welfare. Welfare is so pathetic that it barely helps those in need and there are many, many charities that help.
National Health care I fear would kill off the biggest upper middle class - doctors, etc. The medical industry is really the last strong American industry (manufacturing is gone). The government would create new legal protections from poor care (the stats show medical error deaths the highest cause of death). So no more need for quality care if nobody can be sued for malpractice. They would import immigrants for the new low paying medical professions.
On top of all this, the country is basically broke from the war. We don't have money for all these wasteful departments.
We don't even have money for roads. All the highways will be toll roads in a few years, policed like a sovereign state. Toll fees will be higher than gas costs in 10 years.
The current republicans and democrats are running the country like Enron.
I say Ron Paul has no cons, unless freedom from a bloated, corporate-owned, corrupt, over-reaching government is a con.
His problem is with the federal department of education and its overbearing hand adversely affecting education. One the topic of federal loans for college, he is right to think that people who don't go to college should not be forced to subsidize the college education of others. He believes there will be no problem, as private lenders will step in and fill in the gaps, albeit at a higher rate of interest. In fact, private lenders already play a large role in funding college education so the change would not be a drastic one.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that makes any sense and tells no lies.
The issues which you bring up the government doesn't solve. I can find deep flaws with most of those anti-Ron positions you are highlighting. If this system is so good and so perfect, why are people so PISSED OFF AND FED UP?
The other candidates are LIARS, at least with Paul you get to see all his positions before you elect him, not wait and see.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/sib...
And here is a link to a transcript about how the Bush administration plans to attack 7 countries in 5 years from Wes Clark.http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=3777
If anyone can't see it's time for Ron Paul you will never get it until your children wake up homeless on the land our grandfathers conquered.
This would shut down the government. This notion of strictly local control of everything would lead to 50 city-states. State and local government pass laws that violate constitutional rights of its citizens. .
Sorry for the rewrite this late in; I just felt it was too important a post for me not to have it say exactly what I wanted it to say. And I appreciate all the feedback above; it greatly assisted with the reorganization of my thoughts.
Kind regards,
-Daniel Miessler
This isn’t quite accurate. Paul believes that Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Note the emphasis on Congress. A careful reading of the history of the Ratification will show you that the Framers wrote the First Amendment to prohibit the national government from infringing on the enumerated rights. They relied on individual state constitutions to determine the attitudes of the various states. You may disagree with this position (as do I), but Paul is correct in his interpretation of Original Intent."
Dude, 14th Amendment. Ron Paul and his supporters seem to often pretend that it doesn't exist.
What I do like about Dr. Paul is his hard core advocacy of decentralization. This is hardly just a right-wing or libertarian position. Many on the left and the Green Party also advocates decentralization.
I don't understand the obsession with control of nearly every facet of life by the federal government. Remember, these are the same shysters that lie, steal, cheat and murder. Am I to believe that someone like Hillary Clinton who supports war, torture and domestic spying cares about my health care as she proposes mandatory insurance. This is nothing more than fascism and a bonanza for insurance companies.
What is so outlandish and outrageous about states, counties, cities, and neighborhoods having control over their own education, health care, and numerous other facets of life?
I can't think of anything that the federal government does well at the cost imposed upon the public. I would go so far as to say that at this point in time, Americans would be better off with NO federal government than with it. That is unless you are attached to corporate fascism, global warfare, and big brother databases.
It seems the writer, with his belief in socialism so obvious, should probably be voting for Denis Kucinich. I like Denis Kucinich too, I'm just not a socialist.
Kudos.
While I realize many of Paul's supporters like these traits, one of the reasons I'm so excited about Paul is that he has so many supporters from both the conservative and liberal ends of the political spectrum. After eight years of one of the most divisive administrations in U.S. history, I really believe Paul would have a healing effect on our nation.
And the first step in that healing is making peace between the conservatives who support Paul and the liberals who support him. I'm really glad this post is out there.
That said, let me give my (bleeding heart liberal) take on these points:
Church-State separation - there's a difference between being opposed to teaching Jesus in schools and being opposed to government offering funding (federal or state) to all qualifying programs in a specific area, such as drug rehabilitation. Ron Paul is saying the Founding Fathers did not support denying program funding to an otherwise qualified organization on the sole basis that is has a religious affiliation. His is not saying all public school children should say the Lord's Prayer every day.
I could care less where he believes most people get their morality from, but I'm very enthusiastic he trusts that we already have morals and don't need the government to impose them on us. This would not be an issue for me even if he were running for state or local office.
State governments get to try 50 different things and watch each other to see what works and what doesn't. The most successful programs will spread throughout the states, the least successful ones will die off. If the federal government's program falls flat, it lives on indefinitely because it's now entrenched in the bureaucracy of Washington. The fiasco of No Child Left Behind that both parties are supporting at the federal level is all the evidence I need that the federal government should get out of the state's business regarding education. A plus will be the ending of federal funding of abstinence-only education programs.
I agree with previous posters that the availability of low-interest federally backed loans has contributed to the inflation of college tuition rates. I also believe it has contributed to the deflation of the value of both vocational and college educations. So no problems here with ending the federal student loan program.
No universal health care - and certainly many people will die and be seriously harmed due to lack of health care if Paul is elected as opposed to one of the Dems. But I believe Paul is the strongest candidate for ending the death and serious harm the caused by the way we are using our military. I hate having to make this trade-off, but Paul still has my support.
There's no standard for determining what herbal supplements are safe to consume, and there's been very little problems in that field. That said, I strongly oppose the idea of eliminating the FDA and believe for many reasons that having state-level FDAs would be much worse than our current system. This is an area where I'm relying on Congress to not pass Paul's more radical legislation. Same with the environmental protections. And even more so with the economic policies he advocates - I believe going back to the gold standard and abolishing the Federal Reserve would be a very bad idea.
The Bush appointees to the Supreme Court are very close to overturning Roe. It's scary. But, if Roe is overturned, having those same Supreme Court Justices strike down all federal legislation on the matter will be a huge boon. And, I can see benefits to our national dialog on abortion if states had the power to act on that dialog. Again, abortion is one of the most divisive, polarizing issues in America today, and giving the matter back to the States may offer some healing.
Global warming - thank you to the commentators who described his position on removing subsidies for fossil fuels. As a person who believes peak oil is imminent (or recently happened), this is one area where I'm in favor of allowing market forces free rein - the decreasing supply of oil will drive prices so high the alternatives will take over. Government actions like invading oil-rich nations and nationalizing oil companies would in this case, I believe, cause more harm than good.
I have seen several interviews with Paul where he acknowledges how dependent so many people have become on federal government programs and states that it would be wrong to simply end them. He is definitely in favor of transition periods - decades-long transitions for some programs, such as Social Security - and has been up front with this his whole campaign. I believe he would make an excellent president, but barring that I believe our support for him is needed to send a message to the ruling parties. May we all live freer.
I'll just address briefly the issue with consumer protection.
First, there's nothing stopping a state from enacting its own consumer protection laws.
Second, this is addressable by private groups and in some cases already (UL is a great example). If a corporation commits fraud by saying a product has certain specs when it doesn't, or meets a standard when it doesn't, they'll be hit with all kinds of torts via the civil courts, and criminal charges when appropriate.
Honestly I'd like to see more of this, as there are historical claims of actual harm where a Federal statuatory regulation scheme provided a much easier out for the offenders, and put barriers in the way of victims being made whole.
First: I am a 21 year old college student and I profess to know nothing, least of which who should be the President of my country.
While I share some of your concerns, I feel that some of your criticisms are not because Ron is an extremist, but a traditionalist and would reform some bad ideas that we take for grated as good. Ron Paul seems like a realist -- what a conservative should be -- and it seems that some your criticisms would be too idealist for Ron's taste.
On the Christian issue: My interpretation of your cited passages seem that Ron is talking about the goodness of Christianity and, more specifically, the goodness that comes about when that virtue and communal goodwill is expressed in church. He does not mean that the state and the church should be more closely linked, rather that they should intrinsicly serve different social functions. The state should not be the moral guide, that should be left to the communities themsleves and, by extension, the churches within those communities. This social function of religion is too often forgot by some of the non-religious: people coming together in peace, and with the goal of goodwill and of spreading that peace -- slightly or fully deluded or otherwise -- is a good thing. At such gatherings, people can exchange ideas, thoughts and feelings with people who may share those sentiments. This is so crucial in the creation of healthy, responsible individuals with a sense of community of individuals and it seems that Mr. Paul feels that it has become misguided or even totally lost in much of our society. Futher, Christianity is not the craziest religion -- just the most prevelant in our country -- but the crazy stories in that old book are irrelevant: the sense of community that religion has brought has been invaluable to virtue and unity in our society.
On localized educations: Four words: No Child Left Behind. Again, I see Mr. Paul as a traditionalist on this issue: formal education began when people in their communities, who would have educated their own kids in the past, decided that it would be more efficient to write down a nice collection of useful knowledge and have a single person spoon feed it. I went to public schools, (and I still go to a public school), but I was in a small community of dedicated -- not Christian mind you, mostly Jewish; I am of Catholic descent btw -- families who cared about the future of their children. In some places, families expect the government funded schools to raise the children and that, I think, Mr. Paul believes is a shame.
Mr. Paul would see local leaders -- who care about the future of their children because they know them by name -- take the reigns of the youth. Would this lead to disparity in education? Yes. Would some people teach the bible as the literal truth? Maybe, but Mr. Paul's dedication to personal freedom guarentees them that right. Diversity is the strength of our country, and intellectuals living with bible-thumpers, provides a sort of perfect irony that I for one, think makes us stronger. The alternative, and the reality that we are fast approaching with our dangerously centralized government, would be a brutal fascism favoring either science or spirituality; and that is the type of outcome Ron is trying to avoid.
And I feel that smaller chunks of corruption are truly better than one big one.
On No College Loans: I go to college. My dad's business went under last year and he has not been able to support me at all (he was paying my rent and tuition) since and as a result, I have had to work 40+ hours a week to stay in school and pay rent. It is not easy, but you know what? I am young, and the things that I have learned, even in my last two years at school have been so beneficial, so utterly life changing that I would not have had it any other way. It costs me about $14,000 to go to school and about $700 a month to live and I am perpetually broke and, in fact, have been homeless over the past year to pay tuition. But I have figured it out -- life -- the only way you can: by living hard, you learn how not to. When I graduate later this year, I will have a sense of accomplishment that anyone who has not had a similar experience will not. College is not a given; some people do not go to college and it is no up to the rest of the world to make sure that everyone does. That is not to say that not anyone should be discouraged from going to college or that there are certain people who should be allowed an education by any means, it is just to say that difficult things in life are difficult for two reasons: 1) for the character that conquering adversary brings and 2) to seperate those who are willing to deal with the pain of the road to success from those who are not willing. The nature of our free will, and of the freedom that we enjoy in this country, is such that achievement must be worked for, while failure awaits those who would have the government provide success. The government has helped me in my education: after my dad lost every single asset, including our family home, the government granted me $4,200 dollars for school, including books, and housing for the year. $4,200 to cover over $20,000 in expenses. The fact is, the government simply cannot send everyone to college, myself included, and Ron wants to see the half-help they provide supplanted with an emphasis on self-government and (hopefully!) lower taxes.
On National Heath Care: This is a touchy one so I am going to make it brief: Let the market speak. Put the HUGE health insurance companies that suck the life out of this country, and the drug companies who make us zombies, out of business and... Good luck, Ron.
On the FDA: The FDA has ensured that cigarettes are killing us, cheap cancer cures (See: Immunotherapy Cancer Treatment) are kept off the market, and we are all fat lazy slobs. Yes, the steaks at Safeway are mostly E. Coli free, but this is a failed, ugly organization that it is hard for me to believe that a private group couldn't be better.
Nothing on EPA: I don't know the answer to this one. Sorry.
On Wanting Roe v. Wade Overturned: Um, who cares? Isn't that the judicial branches job? And besides, do you realize how many previous decisions, and post decisions, have to be ignored for that to happen? Even if he would have the power to appoint judges, ultimately, it really doesn't matter what he thinks of that and any judges he could appoint would have to be completely insane to actually overturn that decision. Not to mention that the principles of personal freedom and privacy upon which the decision is based would actually be very difficult for Ron to refute. Mute, in my opinion.
On Climate Change: The climate is changing; that is simply undeniable. However, the climate has been changing for a very long time and will continue to change for a ling time still to come. The cause is something that should be addressed but the only thing that really matters is whether it will get too hot for people to live on this planet, or if we will be able to adapt in some way to survive. Know one knows which will happen, including Ron, but again, this is already being addressed by the private sector and, by Ron's assured admission, is not the business of a presidential candidate, anyway.
In studying Ron, I have realized that even though many of his ideas seem revolutionary or extreme, in fact they are simply a return to the spirit of what the laws of this country started out to be. And that may be the revolution that we all need.
Excellent comment, Chris.
The author speaks truth, but I feel you have a too simplistic view of a lot of his ideas. You might want to read The Libertarian Alternative by Tibor R. Machan. The reason you might disagree with some of his views is that you are use to all the welfare state liberals we have now. The government shouldn't be used as a crutch. People have gotten too use to the government taking care of them. This is why so many Americans are hopeless in so many ways. I would much rather have him with the few flaws them the cookie cutter candidates running right now.
You are right about one thing. Ron Paul is not a socialist and that is seen as his worst crime by the Left. Doesn't anyone recall those famous words of one of our best presidents: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
On thing you have to get clear on right off the bat is that RP is a constitutionalist. That means he wants to get us back to the very thing that allowed this country to start to become rich and powerful: individual liberty and a free-market system. We now have a mixed system that is crumbling into dysfunction, debt and recession. The Left see even more socialism as the answer whereas that will only multiply our problems.
I have never heard him say that church and state should be united. That is just another rumor with no substance. If I thought he was a theocrat I would have nothing to do with him. His statement about being a Christian nation is just a historical fact as far as the religious culture America grew out of. I agree with Jefferson and I'm not even a Christian myself, but I have no problem with him calling it how he sees it so long as he doesn't try to a) set up a theocracy or b) convert others to the faith. And Frankly, I see nothing to worry about in either regard. It's just another distraction.
He is not against state-funding of education. It is just not the job of the federal government to put people through school, give them housing, fix their teeth or tie their shoes. The job of the federal government is to protect the borders, provide a secured debt-free currency, maintain a postal system, maintain diplomatic relations and uphold the laws of this land. Period. The constitution says "provide FOR the welfare" not to provide services to citizens. That means to provide a secure environment for the people to conduct business, grow families and enjoy their lives in peace without infringement.
He IS for health care access and freedom. The only real way to go about it is by regenerating the economy, returning to a manufacturing economy, cut out the Fed and the IRS and getting off the inflationary debt treadmill. Only then can costs go down and real wages rise up to allow us to afford healthcare. Those who still don't have access at that point can still get assistance from the states and charities if need be.
About the environment, let's start with global warming. The Club of Rome thought this up long ago in their bid to force the world into a global government:
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill...The real enemy, then, is humanity itself....Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one INVENTED for the purpose..."
<ul>
<li>The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of Rome</li>
</ul>
The Earth is in between ice ages. That means we are in a solar warming period. Just as the Martian ice caps are melting, so are ours. Now, if you can't put two and two together and realize what a scam this is, then I don't know what to do or how to help you. It's just another scam against the people to rob them of their wealth and freedom. Scams and power plays have been going on since the down of history. Read about it.
Neither the megalithic EPA or the megalithic all-powerful FDA are keeping us safe. In fact, just the opposite because they are totally corrupt. Our environment, our agriculture, and everything else is toxic. Water isn't safe to drink. Food is full of toxic ingredients. GM crops are contaminating the environment and already causing cancers. Most of our medications have deleterious side-effects that literally kill hundreds of thousands of people anually. Toxicity abounds and most of the health problems we have are caused by this toxic collusion between these fascist megacorporations and the government. Ron Paul wants to get rid of corporate welfare so that these big corporatist socialists cannot monopolize business anymore, so that we can have a truely competitive free-market system where consumers dictate to business and not the other way around.
As far as consumer protection, it is guided by the free-market. They are poisoning us, we don't have to buy from them. Then if there is a crisis, the bad guys will be prosecuted under again, the laws of the state, not the federal government. If citizens have a problem with a polluter, they can get together and force them to comply. You don't need a huge overbearing federal bureacracy to protect health and the environment. Some people will always lose out in a free system, but it is impossible to make everybody either equal or painfree no matter what system you have. The overall benefits of a free-market libertarian system vastly outweigh the inevitable problems and injustices that will occur.
Abortion is not protected under the US constitution. There is nowhere in it that says you have the right to terminate human life at will. Aside from Roe vs. Wade, the legal codes of most states do allow that abortions are sometimes necessary on a case-by-case basis. RP says leave it up to the states. If you don't like the laws there, change them or move to another state that suits your needs. People forget that the states are supposed to be sovereign entities, countries unto themselves in fact, with the right to govern themselves as they see fit. It is not the job of the federal government to tell the states how to conduct their own affairs.
He is not an "isolationist". That is the favorite buzzword bandied about by both liberals and neocons. He is a constitutionalist non-interventionist. We have no right policing the world and the federal government has no right to dole out money to other countries, especially when we are a debtor nation ourselves. There are plenty of multimillion and even billion dollar private charities that can exercise good will in other countries and at home in fact. RP wants to trade with other countries. He wants to maintain good diplomatic relations with other countries. He wants to stay out of their affairs and especially stop boming them and overthrowing their governments. What more do you want?
The bottom line is to return power to the local level. He is very concerned about giving people an environment where they can excell and better themselves. His campaign is absolutely about empowering the little guy. He has no plans to suddenly yank the rug out from people and realizes the necessity to make the transition gradually in ways that cause the least amount of pain.
Again, what more do you want?
PW
Alright, I take that back and I am sorry if I failed to acknowledge any faults with the man. I do have a few problems of my own with Ron Paul and I will be brief this time.
<ol>
<li>
Associates himself with Reagan, a Bohemian Grover puppet who quadrupled military spending, started us off into spiraling debt and made a deal with that Russky devil Gorbachev. Never liked Red Ronnie Reagan.
</li><li>
Wrote in praise of the Pope. That does worry me because frankly I think the Vatican (a sovereign nation in itself) has way too much power and sway over our government. In fact, I will go so far as to say the Vatican is one of the greatest dangers to our republic. It was the Vatican that signed the concordat with Hitler for just one of many examples of wickedness that comes out of that place. If RP ingratiates himself with the Pope, it is a great danger just as Jefferson said, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty."
</li><li>
He is close in with the John Birch Society. I don't have too many problems with their stances on most issues, but again, they are tied with with freemasonry and the Vatican and though they are anticommunist (that's good) they have never said they are fighting against fascism, which is not good. They should be against both and so far as I can tell, there is a fascist element in the JBS that is dangerous.
</li><li>
He won't discuss 9/11 as an inside job, but I recognize the danger that presents to his credibility, so I generally don't quibble over it especially since he agrees that another investigation is warranted.
</li><li>
Association with Guy Fawks and V for Vendetta. I totally disagree with the mindset of terrorism no matter what the cause is, so I think this is an unfortunate and wrong move on the part of his campaign. It is just another thing for critics to pounce upon and adding to their claim that RP is a fringe case of the right-wing nut squad or whatever they are saying about him.
</li></ol>
Okay, those are my criticisms of him. They don't so far outweigh my general approval of his overall stances on the issue, but frankly I am willing to change my tune if somewhere down the road I think he is going to sell America out to anyone.
PW
It is interesting to read how many people think that a more socialist approach in governing would be the absolute downfall.
Hopefully this does not come as a surprise, but there are actually countries in this world with large scale social programs...the Scandinavians come to mind. Their societies are far from the brink of disaster. In fact the quality of life is arguably the best in the world...for ALL of their citizens.
I am not worried about electing a candidate who does not agree with me 100% on all issues, as long as the candidate is willing and able to take in new information and change his/her mind if reason warrants it. I am willing to trust that reasoned argument will either prove my ideas or discover better ones, which I will gladly adopt!
Ron Paul has not demonstrated either willingness or ability to reason outside the box of his ideological convictions. Some of his supporters, like Daniel Meissler here, have, but not Ron Paul.
Being able to abstract general principles from a multitude of facts and apply them to new facts is the mark of an intelligent person. Being unable to see facts than contradict your abstract principles is the mark of an ideologue. Anyone who can say "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers," or call the Constitution "replete with references to God," can't see facts through the filter of his ideology. A man who doesn't care what happens to people who cannot afford education or health care as long as his Constitutional principles are kept pure is an ideologue.
I agree that Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush have all expanded federal bureaucracy and spending, and the Bush/Cheney administration has built the power of the Executive branch to a level unprecedented in American history, shredding the Constitutional system of checks and balances. I agree that a balance of power between levels of government (city, county, state, federal) is as necessary as a balance of power between branches of government, to safeguard the maximum individual liberty.
I do not agree that the way to balance one extreme is to head to the opposite extreme. Polarization freezes brain cells. When we tune out the faults of Our Side and tune out the strengths of Their Side, we severely weaken our ability to solve problems!
On the abortion question, I recognize that there are arguments on both sides; but however the argument is decided, it affects everyone equally. If the fetus is an individual with individual rights, then the federal government is constitutionally bound to enforce the rights of ALL fetuses in America, not just those in states that agree with the argument. If fetuses are not individuals and the rights of women to our own bodies take priority, then the federal government is constitutionally bound to enforce the rights of ALL women in America, not just those in states that agree with the argument. Personally, I want to save the lives of as many fetuses, infants, AND women as possible -- and making abortion illegal does NOT do that. Providing health care, food, shelter, education, and safety from violence to all pregnant women, including those in poverty, does.
And whether or not the President of the U.S. can personally mandate any of that, he/she has a very great influence over it.
I think you are having a hard time deciding if you are a libertarian or a socialist. You seem to like both systems. I can not think of anything the government regulates that works. As soon as the politicians get involved it turns corrupt. One thing to keep in mind is we survived a long time and did very well before all this regulation. We let the government start regulating things and look what is happening. We are falling behind the rest of the world very quickly. The problem with socialism is a few benefit and the majority suffer.
Totally wrong. The Constitution bans a federal link between church and state. In the early years of the Republic, Massachusetts and Ct had established religions.
I'd like to say Thank You for writing such an informative and articulate article on Dr. Paul. The world needs hundreds more like you.
I reside in Dr. Paul's district and I have attended many of his public functions over the years. I have met and spoken with him numerous times and the thing that impressed me the most about him is that he is REAL. He does not put on airs and pretend he is something he is not. He does not lay down his principles for anyone or anything. He has a solid moral conviction to return this country to the people for which it was founded.
I'm glad that you will not let your doubts and fears about his missing action plans deter you from supporting him.
I have been of voting age for several years now and I have seen many politicians and elections come and go. After reading your article I tried very hard to think of any one candidate during my tenure as a voter that have ever supplied an action plan to back up his/her intent or promises, whose campaign didn't suffer and die for it. The general rule at this juncture in the game is to state your position on the issues. Devising and implementing a workable plan comes later, once you are in office.
Providing a detailed, step-by-step action plan at this time would be tantamount to campaign suicide for any of the candidates currently up for consideration. Their opponents and the "political analysts" would dissect them with it. Their "spinned out" twisted version of the plan would be used to squash the candidate idiodic enough to supply them with such ample fodder.
Never fear...Dr. Paul has been speaking about the changes that need to happen for many years now. The plans are there, but the time is not ripe for their debut.
I stumbled across this site and read it with interest. I read through the comments and noticed several people talking living life the way they want to if Ron Paul would be elected President.
How is it living life the way you want to when someone tells you what to do with you body? Last time I checked, a government that controlled the personal details of your life such as whether or not a woman is pregnant....is in fact fascist.
I certainly don't like abortion, but I don't have the right to tell someone they can't do it. The whole argument about abortion being murder is ridiculous. Every single one of us helps to commit murder everyday. From the clothes we buy (made in sweatshops) to the cars we drive (which produce CO2) we all take actions daily that affect the lives and the health of others. Don't those children in Asian countries working to death for pennies a day matter?