January
7
2012
I volunteered on a weekend recently to work for the Ron Paul campaign in my city. This was my first time actively volunteering to support a political campaign of any sort. We had a table out front of a local gun store with brochures about Ron Paul, free signs and bumper stickers, t-shirts for sale, and free pocket constitutions. Our objective was to spread Ron Paul’s message of limited government and encourage people to register Republican to vote for Ron Paul. Although we were fairly successful in meeting our objective, having the chance to meet so many like-minded supporters of liberty instilled a greater sense of encouragement and optimism.
There is no doubt that Ron Paul supporters are energized. Yet, something else that became apparent while conversing with other Ron Paul supporters was how well read and knowledgeable they are on all issues regarding economics, history, and politics. That is seemingly a very uncommon trait among many who are engaged in politics. What I have found is that some people interested in politics tend to read books by political talking heads and politicians or former politicians from the party they support. Conversely, Ron Paul supporters typically read books on Austrian Economics, history, and philosophy, which are authored by experts in the particular field of study such as economists, historians, philosophers, economic historians, and lawyers. It should be noted that Ron Paul is also an author of several books on economics and liberty, and that he is an expert in those fields having devoted 40 plus years studying free market economics and history.
What should be realized here is that Ron Paul supporters are highly engaged and more enlightened than the average voters. Not only do Paul’s supporters know what they believe in politically and economically, but they know exactly where he stands as well. It is true that a great number of Americans likely know what they believe in too, however they have been misled if they believe in any other candidate running for president. And how do I know this to be true? Simple, by looking at their voting records. Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has a voting record to back up his principled beliefs and support of the Constitution. All of the other candidates have voted for legislation that is wholly unconstitutional. However, the level of hypocrisy by other candidates’ claiming to support the Constitution is laughable if one is aware of their voting records. If Americans are truly interested in electing a president who will support and defend the Constitution, then there is only one choice.
December
18
2011
All of the Republican presidential candidates claim to support the U.S. Constitution. Nothing could be farther from the truth with the exception of Congressman Ron Paul. Yet, a large number of Republican voters seem to buy it. Not surprisingly, the only candidate who is referred to as the champion of the Constitution is Ron Paul, and he is either ridiculed or ignored by the Republican establishment and its supporters.
Watch the video to hear a true supporter of the Constitution.
October
12
2011
At this point does it really matter if Republicans vote in favor of President Obama’s new $447 billion jobs bill? Does anyone really believe another half trillion dollars is going to make a difference on a national debt of more than $14 trillion. That money will be spent one way or another, which the President has already acknowledged in a press conference. On camera last Tuesday President Obama said “we’re not going to wait for Congress”, and instructed his advisers to “scour this report, identify all those areas in which we can act administratively without additional congressional authorization, and just get it done.”
If the Republicans were wise they would vote to pass the so called jobs bill and let the president destroy his chances for a second term on his own. Obama is campaigning for this second stimulus spewing the same rhetoric he did for the first stimulus. And once again he is claiming that independent economists are certain that the jobs bill will lower unemployment and grow the economy. Yet if this were true then how come the first stimulus didn’t lower unemployment numbers? Instead, unemployment actually increased after the first round of stimulus.
The truth is the Obama administration is fully devoted to Keynesian economics. Apparently Obama believes that when the economy hasn’t recovered from a recession after massive amounts of stimulus spending the only plausible remedy is more stimulus, which is precisely what Keynes recommended. This will prove to be incorrect. The cure is not more government spending and intervention, it is less government intervention. The government must reduce regulations that are hampering businesses, stop the reckless spending, and allow the market economy to recover on its own.
Since Republicans are not willing to vote in favor of the jobs bill the President so strongly believes in, they could potentially be blamed for preventing any chance for a recovery. In that case all the President has to say is what if the bill had passed. Conversely, if the Republicans would vote in favor of the bill to at least give it a chance, while warning it will be a failure, then it is doubtful they would take the heat. In that case Obama would have nobody to blame but himself. Even though the President intends to use his executive authority to pass some parts of the bill, he can still claim that passing the entire bill would have improved the economy’s chances for recovery. After all is said and done, Republicans will be criticized for not passing the bill no matter what the outcome is from the additional spending.
October
10
2011
I have some very important information for all the Ron Paul supporters out there. Perhaps others are aware of the dilemma libertarians like myself will face in the primaries if we don’t act soon, however it just occurred to me today. Many states prohibit third party registered voters such as the Libertarian Party from voting for a Republican or Democrat in the Primaries. This would deal a serious blow to a potential Ron Paul candidacy, one that the Republican establishment is surely aware of and anxiously awaiting to witness. Thus, if Liberty is to have any chance at all we must act now and register as Republicans. Regardless of how we feel about the Republican Party, the fact is, Ron Paul needs us. Of course, after the primaries are over we can switch back to the Libertarian Party. This one is for liberty! Now let’s all go change our voter registrations!
August
11
2011
The Republican Presidential Debate that aired on Fox News tonight was among the worst I’ve watched. The moderators asked former governors Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney significantly more questions than the rest of the candidates. Additionally, a large amount of time was wasted by permitting Congressman Bachman, Governor Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney to go back in forth with rebuttals each time they were attacked directly.
Eventually the debate heated up when the prospects of war with Iran and Libya were brought up. This is when Congressmen Paul finally had a chance to speak. However, it seemed most likely he was only brought into the debate because his views on war are out of step with the rest of his party. Paul made some very strong arguments against the war that angered Governor Santorum and drove him to attack and criticize Paul’s views. This was to be expected and has been the case at every debate Paul has entered. Interestingly, Chris Wallace referred to Paul as an expert on the Constitution, yet it was obvious that the other candidates consider him as anything but an expert.
What I learned from this debate is that if anyone other than Ron Paul receives the Republican Party’s nomination to run against President Obama there will not be any notable change in the direction of our country. If I sound biased it’s because I intend to. Ron Paul is the only candidate who offers a chance at limited government, fiscal responsibility, and an end to the many wars we’re engaged in around the world. The rest of the candidates will merely permit and even support the continued growth of the leviathan.
May
23
2011
Yesterday on Fox News Chris Wallace interviewed Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain followed by Republican Senator Mitch McConnell. Wallace and McConnell discussed the Republican presidential contenders, or lack thereof. Yet the one person whose name was never mentioned was none other than Ron Paul. As they ran through all of the candidates and potential candidates, as well as those who dropped out, they never mentioned Ron Paul. So much for the over-hyped “fair and balanced” slogan. Even more absurd was when Wallace was asking if there might be some other candidate who represents limited government similar to Chris Christie. He fails to realize that Ron Paul is the strongest advocate of limited government in politics and has a voting record to prove it. But they are not concerned with facts, nor do they wish to see a true reformer who will reduce the size of government and the debt. The Republicans want the same things the Democrats do just in a different flavor. It’s socialism vs fascism. Unfortunately for Ron Paul it is discernible that one must be already corrupt or corruptible to receive the support of the political establishment, in this case the Republican Party.
May
19
2011
Once again Ron Paul is being criticized by the right, primarily Fox News. This time it is because he said he thought Bin Laden should have been captured alive the same way other high profile terrorists have been dealt with, as well as Saddam Hussein. Yet none of the brilliant talking heads can seem to understand how anyone could possibly conceive of the idea of capturing a terrorist alive. Paul mentioned several good reasons for his position. If intelligence gathering is pertinent then it makes no sense to kill the ring leader. Another great point is that without revealing Bin Laden alive they have set the stage for conspiracy theorists to go wild. There has already been a significant number of people around the world who believe Bin Laden was already dead, thus convincing them he died again is not too easy. Conversely, there are people who don’t believe he’s dead, even after the recent seal team mission which we were told was recorded live for the administration to watch. And after we were told Bin Laden was dead the story released by White House personnel changed multiple times. Then, as if to add insult to injury they have said that the body of Bin Laden was dumped in the ocean shortly after his death and that no pictures would be released. It’s almost as if the administration want to create skepticism among the public. After hearing all of the mixed up stories is it any wonder why Paul would have chosen instead to capture Bin Laden alive? However, there is one more very important reason Ron Paul would not have ordered Bin Laden killed unless armed. The fact that our country has a history of trying war criminals in a court of law in which evidence can be used to prosecute and execute if guilty. This is how the Nuremberg Trials were handled, and the much more recent Saddam Hussein trial. It should not be difficult to understand Paul’s reasoning here.
February
21
2011
Congressman Ron Paul held his opening hearing last week as chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve. One of the economists Paul called to speak at the hearing was Professor Tom DiLorenzo, an economics professor at Loyola University in Maryland. Professor DiLorenzo has written 14 books, many of them on controversial topics, such as “Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe,” which portrays Lincoln much differently than what most Americans were taught in school. Yet, regardless of the controversial subjects Professor DiLorenzo has written about, he is indeed a reputable economist with a large base of readers and fans who admire him greatly.
Congressman Paul started the hearing by explaining the agenda and introducing the three economists who were invited. Then each member was allotted time to address and question the economists. Things got ugly when Congressman Clay was yielded his time. He began with Professor DiLorenzo by viciously scolding him for his writings of Lincoln and for being a member of “The League of the South Institute.” Though if the Congressman truly did perform his own research on DiLorenzo’s career as he claimed, he should have clearly realized that the professor merely gave a few lectures to the organization shortly after its founding. But of course the Congressman was not concerned with facts and instead was solely interested in criticizing the professor by essentially insinuating that he is pro-slavery and a racist. Perhaps this type of behavior is to be expected from many of today’s Democrat politicians, however, it was entirely unwarranted and should have been condemned.
Clay further continued with his criticisms by taking on the Austrian School of Economics from which DiLorenzo is a practicing scholar. The Austrian School generally disregards mathematical models and statistics as a reliable means of testing economic theory, and instead relies on praxeology, the study of human action. It should be noted that Nobel Laureate Frederic Hayek was one of the founders of the Austrian School. Clay’s criticism of the Austrian school targeted its use of praxeology, insinuating it as inferior to the empirical research methods which mainstream economics relies. According to Clay, research can never be proven by the Austrians because they omit using mathematical models and calculations. Apparently he is not impressed that a number of Austrians correctly predicted the housing crisis and great recession.
In an elitist-like fashion, after Clay finished addressing DiLorenzo he had no questions for him at all and followed up by saying he did not feel the professor was even worthy of being called to the hearing. This of course based on Clay’s own notion that DiLorenzo was primarily an economic historian, favors an inferior school of economic thought, and had not performed any research or writings on economics topics such as monetary systems for at least 15 years. DiLorenzo does indeed write a great deal on economic history, yet that should not be discredited as having nothing to do with monetary systems when in fact the monetary system and policies of a government are of grave importance when writing about history. Furthermore, Clay fails to consider that Ben Bernanke, whom he seems to consider a highly qualified economist, has written extensively on economic history with a major focus on the Great Depression. Thus, there is ample evidence to suggest Clay’s allegations emphasize his own ignorance in the fields of economics and history. As for DiLorenzo, he had no chance for rebuttal to refute the false claims. However, he did participate in the hearing and received much more respect from the Republicans on the panel.
February
16
2011
Texas Congressman Ron Paul has now won the straw pole at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) two consecutive years. Yet is it any wonder why other so called conservatives attempt to downplay the event. Rest assured, had Mitt Romney or any other establishment neocon won the straw pole fellow conservatives would have deemed it the pole of all poles. Perhaps the most plausible remedy is to discontinue the straw pole since it apparently means nothing according to the neocons in the Republican Party and conservative news media, or better yet, it means nothing if Ron Paul is the voters’ choice.
Fox News covered the story and showed extreme bias toward Paul as expected. Contributing columnist Jake Gibson pointed out that Paul was booed when the results were announced but that Paul’s supporters drowned it out by chanting “Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!” Why mention the boos if in fact the chanting of Ron Paul’s name drowned them out? Perhaps this was done simply to remain fair and balanced. Gibson made it clear that “Paul’s consecutive victories in the straw pole have frustrated many GOP faithful who would rather see a more credible contender win.” Why is Paul not credible? Is it because he does not compromise his principles and has a voting record to prove it? Could it be that he is not corrupt like the vast majority of politicians? Or is it merely because he is not one of the elite neocons or progressives that the Republican Party can rely on to continue to enforce the military industrial complex, increase deficit spending, and create more unconstitutional laws and regulations. Then, a comment that should come as a shock is the fact that an official from CPAC told Fox News that “the big story is not Paul winning but rather the strength of Romney’s second-place finish.” If people are to assume that the ACU is indeed guided by the principles listed on their website then this comment is shocking. The ACU has displayed bias against its own pole.
The unfortunate circumstance for Ron Paul is that the Republican Party (politicians, not the registered voters) does not want Paul to secure the nomination. Contrary to the myth some people naively believe that registered voters decide who is placed on the ballot, the fact is it is the delegates who ultimately decide who will receive the party’s nomination. Considering Paul is the last person a Republican majority of delegates would choose to nominate, it doesn’t matter how many registered Republican voters cast their ballot for Paul in the primaries if he pursues running for office.
Regardless of the dissent against Congressman Paul from within his own party, some optimism can be drawn from the rising popularity and following he receives. His true call for liberty and strict adherence to the Constitution is catching on to a young and vibrant audience as well as other age groups. As Ron Paul said in his speech at the CPAC, “The brushfires of freedom are burning!” For those who have a burning passion to have individual liberties restored it is well worth continuing to support Ron Paul.
January
30
2011
The recent terrorist attack at an airport in Moscow, Russia proved terrorists don’t need to board a plane to create havoc. Stricter security measures at airports have caused long lines to form leading to heavily crowded areas at the gates. It was only a matter of time before a horrific attack such as the one in Moscow would occur. Unfortunately, nothing will be learned from the attack short of the genius governments imposing even stricter security checks. Who knows, perhaps travelers can look forward to security checks before entering the airport. But what if a terrorist attack is successful there? Then what? Will the TSA start checking travelers’ cars when arriving at airport parking? These questions may sound ridiculous but so would have telling someone prior to 9-11 that they would have to go through x-ray machines and submit to grotesque fondling of their private parts merely to travel by air.
The citizens of the U.S. and other countries around the globe are witnessing the loss of liberties at an astounding rate. Here in the United States the citizens’ have foolishly given up their fourth amendment right for supposed safety. Maybe some day Americans will take to heart the words of Benjamin Franklin in regard to liberties and safety:
“Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
A great many Americans are fooled by the rhetoric of politicians and the media alike. Hardly anyone wants to believe that the government cannot be trusted. They want to continue living life without concerning themselves with politics. Well, that can be done, and quite honestly that is exactly what the government hopes for. The last thing the government wants is for the American people to wake up and realize the agenda in store. But rest assured, everyone will wake up, it’s only a matter of whether they wake up in time to prevent the total loss of liberty or after it has been stripped away.