Author Archive for CorieW

Am I Dreaming … ?

Wow.

Seriously just … Wow

I have literally lost all eloquence because I am utterly speechless. I cannot possibly express in words how sincerely proud I am of each and every Ron Paul supporter in this country and beyond. It was enough of a dream for me to simply find out that there was a Republican Presidential candidate who is, at his very core a Constitutionalist. Then, I was fortunate enough to have an opportunity to meet him and was sincerely humbled by the power of his genuine nature and intelligence….

Now?

Now there is no possible way to ignore us! We all know that money talks, and you know what?

WE’VE GOT THE MONEY! (Plus 3 million and counting in LESS than twenty-four hours!)

This is as genuinely American as it gets! Real citizens donating their hard earned cash to the wonderful and inspiring Ron Paul because in their hearts, they are wholly sure that he transcends all the varying forms that political corruption comes in. It is inspiring to be a part of this, and even MORE inspiring to know that since the first day I learned of Ron Paul, my support for him was, and will continue to be entirely unwavering.

I can only pray that as us dedicated supporters continue to do more to give him the positive publicity he deserves, and that other like-minded Americans will find out about Ron Paul and feel as passionately as I do. That is sincerely what I ask at this given point in time. Everything else will fall into place with time after such a wish is fulfilled. I am 100% confident in that because I am 100% confident in the power of our Constitution.

I am so overly inspired right now that I am not even sure I can possibly convey it. This is my feeble attempt. The Ron Paul Revolution at its current point means something greater than any of us of us can express, and I can’t wait to continue watching this develop - and of course HELPING it develop!

The Great American Experiment WILL continue on because WE THE PEOPLE control it - not special interests, not the corporate media and not the privileged few.

As long as we follow our Constitution and amend it only with great care, I am confident that as a Republic, we will continue to flourish.

Sphere: Related Content

Meeting the Man Himself!

Being a member of the Ron Paul for President Boston Meetup group has been a pleasure from the start, but never did I expect that it would yield an opportunity so marvelous as the one I was presented with officially on the morning of September 28th. I heard my cell phone ring around 7:30 AM on Friday as I was scrambling around getting ready for class, nervous because I knew that in less than 12 hours from that exact moment, I could be meeting face to face with my only living political hero - and that’s not me exaggerating by any means! I answered to hear Bob Dwyer, another dedicated member of our group on the other line. As I heard the words, “Congratulations!” my heart skipped a beat. He meant what I only could have dreamed he did - I was going to a private event in Beverly, Massachusetts to meet the one and only Dr. Ron Paul!

As a person tends to when they’re excited, it seems that I’ve gotten ahead of myself. First, I must begin by explaining that due to an innovative thought originally presented to us by one of our members, Scott DiNitto (also a writer here at the Beacon), a few of our members were able to set up a lottery that would allow for one of us to attend the private event that called for a $1000 donation to the campaign. We got the ball rolling on this idea by Tuesday, knowing that we would have to raise $1000 by Thursday in order to speak with the campaign and obtain a ticket. As optimistic as I tend to be, I was not sure that we would be able to muster our forces and raise that amount of money in such a short time. Andrew Johnson and I championed the idea on our mailing list, noting that even if we could not raise $1000, the money we do obtain will go to the campaign - and before the September 30th fundraising deadline! Essentially, it was a win-win situation.

I woke up late on Thursday morning to find that we had more than reached our fundraising goal! To be honest, I was entirely astonished but nonetheless grateful - especially because some individuals who could not even make it up to the North Shore on Friday had donated. It was truly breathtaking to see people coming together so quickly to reach a common goal! As Dr. Paul always says, perhaps it’s because freedom is popular! Regardless, I was stunned. The lottery drawing was to be held Thursday night at 7!

I have to say, as mystical as it may sound, I truly felt as though fate was in my hands Friday morning, because I had come in third in the aforementioned drawing yet it turned out that the two chosen before me could not attend. The 11 hours that remained of Friday before I was to head north for an event I still could not believe I would be attending were totally surreal. Even more unbelievable was the moment I saw Ron Paul walking up the steps, heading right in my direction. My heart was pounding and I was speechless to the extent I feared I would become, unable to competently introduce myself. As eloquent as I had planned to be, in the presence of greatness the first words that came out of my mouth (and in retrospect, I do wish they had been different) were, “You are my idol”. There I was, standing in front of the Good Doctor himself and the words I utter sound more like I’m 12 and Dr. Paul is Justin Timberlake. Nonetheless I will never forget the way he looked at me, inherently stunned that people do, on a daily basis, say such things to him. For those who may have doubted it, I assure you, Ron Paul is a man of such humility that it’s almost wrong. He is so utterly convinced that it’s not him, but the message - that he is simply a spokesperson for this Revolution and that he cannot claim it as his own.

After saying what I did, Dr. Paul thanked me, but in a way where he seemed somewhat outside of himself. When you meet the man face to face, you really do get the impression that he feels he is a representative of something greater, something one man cannot himself possess. His selflessness is part of the reason that he is so inspiring, and his sense of humor makes him that much more compelling. Amidst our initial exchange, I took my Constitution out and showed him that he’d signed it after the Republican Debate at the University of New Hampshire. I went on to explain that because he was being swarmed by his usual mass of fans I recognized that it was either a handshake or getting him to sign the back page of my Constitution between quotes from John Marshall and Benjamin Franklin, right where his name belongs. He observed his signature, laughed, and said, ”Yeah, it looks like I was pretty hurried! And to make up for that, here are two handshakes!” and proceeded to go through the motions of shaking my hand twice. I’ll never forget that little gesture. To me, it totally exemplifies who I believe Dr. Paul is as a person - so utterly genuine, so innately real, humble and loving. It’s as if he wants to reassure all of the people who believe in the message that he speaks on behalf of them, on behalf us collectively as the American People, and certainly not on behalf of himself exclusively by any means - a serious rarity in a Presidential candidate but something our country so desperately needs.

It is quite obvious that Dr. Paul is sacrificing a great deal of his personal life, time with his family, meals, and sleep (the last two explained to me by the wonderful Mrs. Paul) to warn Americans that our freedoms of choice and conscience are under attack and that we must fight back to retain what we may now take for granted. Every move he makes is executed with such grace and each word he says is so unmistakably genuine, humble and most of all, Patriotic. I almost bring a tear to my own eye recalling it, because in meeting him, I can verify that Ron Paul is truly a Statesman of Founding Father stature. I have no doubt that had he been alive during the Revolutionary Era, he would have been present at our Constitutional Convention. Instead, we have been graced with a man of his greatness in our own time, and I truly believe that a continuation of our spectacular American Revolution manifests itself in Dr. Paul and the Patriots that continue to support him with steadfast vigor.

The event overall, was quite successful and I will be forever indebted to the many individuals who provided me with such a rare and incredible opportunity. While the highlight was obviously meeting the great Dr. Paul himself, discovering how fantastic, friendly, intelligent and just plain adorable Mrs. Paul is, and meeting other wonderful Patriots such as Michael Nystrom of The Daily Paul helped to make the fundraiser a night I will always look back on quite fondly - especially knowing now of the 5 million we all personally helped the campaign to raise! Also, I would also like to thank Mr. and Mrs. Stacey for pointing out that I was the guest present who had won the Boston Meetup Group lottery. When Ron Paul reffered to me as “the special guest”, I was just utterly stunned, flattered and beyond anything, infinitely appreciative.

I hope that as a people we continue the great American Experiment our Founder’s have bequeathed us. Freedom, as Ron Paul reminds us, is not an antiquated notion, but tyranny and Authoritarian governance on the other hand are age-old methods far more rooted in human history than that of our great Constitutional Republic, which as Americans we must defend. I am aware now, more than ever after having met them, that Dr. and Mrs. Paul are model citizens. Again, I would like to personally thank them, their family, and every member of the Boston Meetup Group who made it possible for me to meet these wonderful, Patriotic individuals.

As citizens of this unique, and still very young Republic, we must always seek to participate in the incessant fight for freedom that characterizes our much heralded American Dream. Our great country was founded upon the ideal of liberty, and through the years many a great American has worked to secure that freedom for each of us. We mustn’t sit back now and surrender our sovereignty to an unconstitutional form of government masquerading as one that is American. The legacy of America’s Founding and the autonomy it offers lives on in both the eloquent and passionate Dr. Paul as well as within ourselves - but it can only continue to flourish if we the people open our eyes and recognize it’s infinite and unwavering importance.

Sphere: Related Content

A Soldier’s Neo-Con Free Perspective on Iraq

An old friend of mine who is currently stationed in Iraq sent me an instant message tonight to catch up and chat. I was quite surprised, pleasantly so, of course, because I haven’t spoken to him in ages. We talked about this that and the other thing, and not knowing at all where he would stand on the issue, I asked him how he thought things were going over there. I was honestly entirely unsure of what his response would be, because I primarily remember his “let’s get ‘em!” attitude prior to basic training back in high school. What he did end up saying though, was both justifying to me but rather upsetting at the same time - the prototypical catch-22.

To start, he laughed, then cursed the place out. His next statement reminded me of something that Rudy Giuliani, who has never been to Iraq, would call “extraordinary” or “unbelievable”: “The only reason why things seem to be going well is because we pay the bad guys not to fight us anymore”. I responded with a sarcastic comment about how bribery is always fantastic and he added to his initial comment by saying, “The same guys that were attacking us and blowing us up everyday work for us now as ‘Iraqi Police’ - which is fine to me, as long as it lasts until after October when I come home, haha.” I in response of course commented on the whole scenario as being a bad idea in the long-term. He then explained the situation further in saying, “These people are horrible. We shouldn’t be here, cause we’re fighting Al Qaeda and this other terrorist group. Then the two groups started fighting, and then once the other started winning we ‘allied’ with them …. ”

 ….. Then came the statement that was extremely upsetting to me: “It’s real nice working with people who you know have killed your friends and blown you up and shot at you. I hate them all. I just want to go home.” As I manifested feelings of sympathy, sadness, then anger, remembering how passionate this friend of mine was about fighting for his country, honor and all those ideals entailed before being sent to Iraq, I realized then and there how infinitely and personally offended I was by comments made by the neo-conservatives in the September 5th debate. I became especially aware of my disgust in relation to Mike Huckabee’s statements about honor in his exchange with Ron Paul.

Huckabee, as well as the other neo-conservatives, are presidential candidates running on OTHER people’s sacrificed honor, not on the symbolic honor of the Republican party, and certainly not on an honor they personally possess. The neo-conservative candidates are basing their platforms on their individual egos and an inability to admit that they were, first off, acting illegally, and secondly were wrong. These men say that it’s about “finishing what we started” and about “honor”, but I invite someone to please explain to me where the honor lies in forcing American troops to fight side by side with terrorists disguised as mercenaries further disguised as allies who have killed the dearest friends of our brave soldiers?

Another interesting point my friend made was about the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. We were discussing another friend of ours who was recently sent to Afghanistan. I said that I assumed based on what I know that it must not be as bad there as it is in Iraq. He responded by saying that Afghanistan is supposed to be a lot better. “The people hate us here (in Iraq) but are semi-indifferent over there.” Interesting point - perhaps because the presence of troops in Afghanistan actually relate to September 11th whereas in Iraq, nothing positive is being achieved.

In a country where the police are simply a terrorist group themselves, and we have been reduced to aiding them as our only legitimate course of action so that things “look good”, we have no business there. It seems to me that everything occuring in Iraq is merely a temporary “fix” to an endless problem. It’s just the U.S. government supporting another terrorist group disguised as an ally. What will be next? There is no long-term solution that the U.S. can possibly provide. Whenever our government provides a political group or country with weapons (Iran-Contra Affair), or aids them in the overthrow of elected leaders (1953 Coup D’Etat in Iran), nothing good comes of it. The only result is what the CIA calls BLOWBACK - a concept apparently foreign to the neo-conservatives although the term simply means that there are consequences to our actions; consequences ranging from deep-seated hatred of the United States of America by countries we intervened in to actual aggression from groups using such actions as components of the reason they attacked.

I know that I can keep dreaming, but I’d like to see even the smallest bit of accountability on the part of the neo-conservatives who pretend so fervently that they are Republicans. As Ron Paul points out quite often, Reagan, a man the party idolizes, was smart enough to recognize the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics, and pulled out of Lebanon. No incoherent, backward ramblings where a perverse version of honor is used to justify an obvious mistake - he just did what needed to be done. The neo-conservatives could learn from their supposed idol. They’d also probably better themselves if they took a couple of history classes; especially on foreign policy.

Sphere: Related Content

It’s History, Not Legend

As I was walking home down Hanover Street last night, I cut through the park area near the Old North Church and took a look at the statue of a man we Americans memorialize, perpetually put on a pedestal, but apparently disregard. Are we truly that removed from the message of freedom our Founding Fathers gave their sweat, blood and tears to intergrate into the fabric of our society? Paul Revere’s statue portrays him as heroic - almost mythical - and maybe that in and of itself is the problem.

At what point does history become legend? What length of time must pass for a human mind to simply disregard the mistakes of our forebearers and inevitably repeat them? I fail to understand those who are so quick to ignore the truths that history teaches us - especially the politicians who do it. James Madison, the man posterity has named the Father of our Constitution warned us that “if tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

Profound, and quite relevant to the contemporary American, no? It’s almost as though Mr. Madison was an oracle. Though a genius, he was not omniscient. The mystery of what he in fact was lies in an all too obvious explanation: James Madison, and all of the great individuals who aided in the founding of America were educated. These men knew their history and understood the complexities of human interaction, two things that apparently, the neo-conservative candidates running for the highest office of what we currently call America either disregard or simply do not understand.

Being present at the Republican debate Wednesday night was truly disheartening to say the absolute least. As a traditional conservative and advocate of limited government, I was sick to my stomach as a reaction to almost every response the candidates (besides Ron Paul, obviously) provided. I was especially displeased with Mitt Romney, who of course, FOX gave the most time to. I had to manifest a great deal of composure to react quietly when Mr. Romney told an enthusiastic, but seemingly ignorant audience that our government has no call to protect civil liberties when it cannot protect life (therefore justifying the Patriot Act among an array of other unconstitutional activities).

The telling James Madison quotation resounded repeatedly in my head as I fully recognized that I was witness to an exact manifestation of his prediciton, as so many before me have seen the roots of tyranny take hold in their lives. Oppression does not bequeath itself upon a society overnight, but rather the gradual erosion of civil liberties strip us of our freedoms of choice and conscience, because we have never met directly with intolerable tyranny in our lifetimes. We must depart from this narrow view of our existences and gather years of history and precedent together to formulate a viable theory of what our futures will in fact come to if “checks and balances” continue to operate within our government as more of a symbol than a legitimate method.

As it stands, both the Republicans and the Democrats as entire parties want the government to have control over more and more aspects of our lives. Whether it’s Romney giving the government the go ahead to do anything in order to “protect life” or Hillary convincing her constituents that it is the duty of our American government to intervene in everything from healthcare to genocide in third world countries despite the inherent inefficiencies of bureaucracy and the fact that government intervention will inevitably worsen the situations.

If principle cannot beat out Establishment in this election, I will be sorely disappointed in the ability of the American people to understand and utilize what voice we are given, but I won’t give up. I’m out on the streets spreading the word about the Ron Paul Revolution because the optimist in me believes that true civic-minded Americans will grasp the importance of the good doctor’s principled message. We mustn’t limit ourselves to our own constricted views of life as we see it in front of us. It’s an age-old cliche, but history repeats itself.

Sphere: Related Content

A Perversion of Patriotism

I recently read an article about the Ron Paul Revolution that was printed in the Boston Globe. As a Ron Paul supporter, I’d say that overall it’s not particularly bad (any exposure raises awareness), but of course feel it doesn’t do him justice. My obvious bias aside, I find it interesting that the article states, in reference to the June 5th GOP debate, that Giuliani won “patriotic points” by telling Ron Paul (and in effect the CIA as well as the 9/11 Commission Report) he was wrong. Though I am not doubting Giuliani’s good intentions in the general (and apparently uneducated) sense, I believe that Cathy Young (writer of the referenced article) and the average American have a perverted idea of what patriotism in fact is because of how it has been branded (take for example, none other but the infamous Patriot Act). As Ron Paul so eloquently puts it, “The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.”

Although this article portrays Dr. Paul in a generally favorable light, it gets me down a bit - starts making me feel like I’m somewhat of a dreamer, lost in the legacy of the founding fathers and out of touch with the reality of, as Ms. Young puts it, the “age of bipartisan Nanny Statisim.” But I refuse to believe that a principled, pro-liberty message of small government and Constitutional ideals is outdated. It is timeless, and furthermore, it is correct. Myself, like so many other Ron Paul supporters I’ve had the pleasure of speaking with, cannot identify as a either a neo-conservative Republican or seemingly socialist Democrat, because both parties seem, as a whole, so painfully out of touch with what they are supposed to be upholding as American political entities: liberty, the rule of law under our Constitution, and TRUE American ideals of freedom, not government control as a means to acquire and “spread democracy.” If we are not bestowed with the miracle of Ron Paul becoming our next President, I truly worry about the path this country is headed down. The optimist in me does have faith in the character of the American people, and sometimes I think, maybe, just maybe when it gets really bad, the majority of us will wake up. But my fear is that it is going to have to get that bad for a wake up call to arm the American people against tyranny (metaphorically of course, as the Second Amendment will likely have been repealed by then *knock on wood*). George Washington warned us to “guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” I hope that as a people, we have the ability to do that. It may take longer than an impatient young optimist like myself can even conceive of, but I do have faith in what our Founding Fathers gave us. Individuals like Ron Paul help to justify that said faith. The reality of his grassroots support is highly motivating as well. Even if Ron Paul doesn’t win in 2008, at least I know that there are thousands, if not millions of Americans who refuse to go down without a fight. And this is not by any means the last battle.

Sphere: Related Content

Understanding Ron Paul’s Stance on Abortion

I am an avid Ron Paul supporter. I am also pro-choice whereas he holds strong pro-life views, yet I agree with him completely on abortion. Confused yet? Read on–this is the exact misunderstanding of abortion that I want to eradicate–you can be pro-choice and against the terms of Roe v. Wade. How? Because Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, and Ron Paul recognizes this without a pro-life bias as I do without a pro-choice predisposition of my own.

To justify the terms of Roe v. Wade, a “constitutional right to privacy” is often referenced, but I challenge any reader of the Constitution to point out to me exactly where this supposed right to privacy is actually written–and how it possibly overrules the terms of the 10th Amendment, which specifically says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”

The supposed “Constitutional right to privacy” started with a Supreme Court case heard in 1965 called Griswold v. Connecticut. The facts of the case surround a Connecticut law that made it illegal for married couples to be counseled on the use of contraceptives. Absurd as the statute may have been, Constitutionally speaking, it shouldn’t have been struck down by the highest federal court, as it was a state issue. As the Supreme Court Justice I most admire, Judge Hugo Black (who never went anywhere without a Constitution in his pocket) puts it in his written dissent on this case:

I feel constrained to add that the law is every bit as offensive to me as it is to my Bretheren of the majority and my Brothers HARLAN, WHITE and GOLDBERG, who, reciting reasons why it is offensive to them, hold it unconstitutional. There is no single one of the graphic and eloquent strictures and criticisms fired at the policy of this Connecticut law either by the Court’s opinion or by those of my concurring Brethern to which I cannot subscribe - expect that their conclusion that the evil qualities they see in the law make it unconstitutional.

Taking a brave stance against activist judges, who characteristically bend the terms of the Constitution to justify their individual agendas, Justice Black sets aside his personal convictions to let the governmental process work as it was intended to, as Dr. Ron Paul would with abortion by revoking the privilege of making rather than interpreting law from the Supreme Court and restoring the specified Constitutional restraints on government. Abortion, as an infinitely complex scientific and moral issue, would then be left to the states - exactly what our Founding Fathers would have wanted, as they were as a whole quite weary of exactly what the federal government has become today: an uncontrollable and power driven centralized body of government with a disturbing disregard for state’s rights.

As a young female who has grown up in the typically “Blue State” of Massachusetts and recently spent two years at a very liberal private school in New York City, I’ve heard the feminist argument that it’s not the place of “nine men in robes to determine our fate.” Well ladies, you’re exactly right. What the nine judges did in Griswold and Roe is what I call “creating a shortcut to liberty”, because you may agree with their conclusions as a staunch pro-choice advocate, but the ruling is in effect violating your rights as an American citizen, because these judges were appointed to interpret law, not voted on to write legislation.

You vote for your representative in Congress as well as on a more local level, and that gives you a voice. Petition your city/town and state governments–vote, participate and if you’re pro-choice, don’t be a hypocrite and complain about these “old men” who know nothing about your body as a modern woman–because something tells me it would be these exact women who would be the first to become militant if Roe was to be revoked, yet it was the same “clueless old men” who set the terms of Roe into motion.

As my Dad puts it, democracy is cathartic to none other than we, the people, and as strongly as I believe a woman has a right to choose, another individual feels that life starts at conception and thusly that abortion is murder. Therefore, from a governmental standpoint, a moral issue such as abortion need be a battle between the people, and the dissenters in a specific state can admit defeat when local democracy works, not when a majority of Supreme Court judges bend the law to accomodate a “progressive” social agenda.

Knowing the complex medical and ethical details surrounding abortion is not the job of a Supreme Court judge, but understanding how our Constitutional Republic operates is; exactly why experts on local levels should be addressing abortion and any other issue not expressly discussed within the Constitution, not the federal government. In fact, Oyez.com, the fantastic website chock full of Supreme Court case information and MP3s of oral arguments that I generally use when referencing a case, states in a summary conclusion of Griswold v. Connecticut that “Though the Constitution does not explicity protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy.”

That right there is all the information I need as a strict constructionist to determine, as Judge Black did, that the Griswold ruling seems to be a manipulation of the Constitution by a group of federal judges following their instincts rather than what is written in the Constituiton. If the people of Conneticut felt offended by this law, they should have petitioned to their state government, which is Constitutionally given the power to deal with the local laws to protect people from an overzealous federal government.

The infamous Roe v. Wade case of 1973, based highly on the unconstitutional precedent set in Griswold, became part of an equally as destructive precedent of the Supreme Court acting as lawmakers rather than interpreters. Again, refferencing Oyez.com, an effect of Roe v. Wade was that, “The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court’s ruling.” Constitutionally speaking, the Supreme Court defining rather than interpreting seems a bit out of line to me, as I would assume it does to Dr. Paul - or to any advocate of the Constitutional rule of law!

I ended a paper on interpreting the Constitution that I wrote for a class entitled “Law and Justice in America” last semester with the following statement and question:

“Fundamentally, the idea of letting the Man alone is integral to the basic intent inherent in the Constitution. But if one is to employ an analysis of historical jurisprudence it must be noted that if the Supreme Court votes in a way that seems to allow for more expansive freedoms, parallel to the intent of the Framers, it is in effect violating the indispensable balance of power between the three branches of government that is purposefully outlined in the Constitution. It is blatantly not the Supreme Court’s place to restrict state power to the extent that it sometimes has in the name of ‘freedom’, because what freedom is there when the American people themselves have no voice?”

I now respectfully ask my current readers to ponder the same question and to consider the importance of keeping the federal government at bay on ethical issues such as abortion, which are best suited to be dealt with locally, not nationally. Despite the fact that I disagree with Ron Paul on his contention that life starts at conception, I agree completely with his call to make complicated social problems state issues. Why? Because I’ve read the Constitution.

Sphere: Related Content




Close
E-mail It