Author Archive for MichaelC

Ron Paul is a Non-Interventionist, NOT an Isolationist

Published by
MichaelC
at December 6, 2007 in Foreign Policy. 0 Comments

I watched the CNN/Youtube debate on November 28th with a handful of fellow members of the Boston Ron Paul Meetup Group. I was intrigued by the new format that asked questions to the candidates in a Youtube-styled format. The videos were at times as interesting to watch as the candidates answers. The videos tackled political issues in creative ways that brought an element of light-heartedness to the typical partisan contest. I can remember a few moments that stood out in my mind during this new-style political forum. One of them was when John McCain referred to Paul as an “isolationist” for not wanting to continue the Iraq War.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRQ41bKLyzU

I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I’ve heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it’s failed. And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement. And I want to tell you something, sir. I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops, and their message to you is — the message of these brave men and women who are serving over there is, “Let us win. Let us win”

Isolationism is very different from non-interventionism. Isolationism involves both non-interventionism and protectionism. One can be a protectionist interventionist or a pro-free trade non-interventionist. Ron Paul advocates “peace and commerce with all, entangling alliances with none,” the same view as the Founding Fathers. Under a Ron Paul presidency the US economy would be anything but isolated under REAL free trade, not managed trade (a topic worthy of its own separate article.)

At a recent event a former congressman and friend of Ron Paul shared a quote of Dr. Paul’s with us: “As a libertarian I can see that there are some times when it is justifiable to go to war. But shouldn’t it be rare?” Indeed, since the Second World War, War has been anything but rare. Before then, we did not intervene abroad as often. Since then we have intervened in Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Somalia (twice), Haiti, Angola, Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq (three times.) What John McCain said is much more deep and dangerous than that single debate. Since non-interventionism had been given scapegoat status for “causing World War II,” that has been used as a tool to justify ANY opportunity for foreign intervention. “You better not oppose this or else you’ll cause World War II!” These interventions for a New Age Imperialist foreign policy have cost America a lot: money to fund these interventions, lives of brave men and women and reputation. This last element, as Ron Paul and the CIA call “blowback” is key. Blowback describes the “unintended consequences” of past operations. When people are attacked or feel threatened/occupied they might strike back at some time. The CIA is required to learn about blowback. If only we had a similar standard for presidential candidates.

Ron Paul’s foreign policy, the same as that of the Founding Fathers, would be “peace and commerce with all, entangling alliances with none,” and we can expect a dramatic decline in direct attacks upon the US because of the disintegrating influence of the blowback effect. Peace prosperity and freedom…quite different from a World War, wouldn’t you say?

Sphere: Related Content

The National ID Card Cometh…

Published by
MichaelC
at December 1, 2007 in Federal Government. 0 Comments

The REAL ID Act, signed into law in 2005, provides for nationally-standardized ID cards to be designated to residents of the US by each individual state.  It originally was scheduled to take effect in mid-2008, but that deadline has since been rescheduled for late 2009.  Ron Paul, as a congressman and as a candidate for president, has consistently opposed the measure.  This may not seem threatening to some people at the moment.  After all, it’s just a harmless card with your picture on it-right?  Wrong.  As Ron Paul has pointed out in his speeches, a national ID card is just another assault on civil liberties on the part of the federal government in the name of war.  Paralleling the issue of gun control, measures that require guns or a certain type of gun to be “registered” with the government may seem harmless.  After all, it’s no big deal-the government just wants to know where those guns are so they can fight crime better.  Right?  Afraid not.  Some time later when the government decided to ban assault weapons entirely, they simply used the registration list they compiled before to confiscate the guns from private law-abiding citizens and render them powerless against criminals who possess such guns illegally.  In the end the gun registration laws served as nothing but a tool to empower the government to infringe upon the rights of the people.  It did not help fight crime any more than the national ID card will help fight terrorism.  Rounding up registered guns may be mirrored by the rounding up of people unjustly.  And rest-assured, this “war-time measure” will not disappear when the war ends.  In the Shadow Children Series by Margaret Peterson Haddix, which I started reading a few years ago a futuristic totalitarian government keeps track of its citizens through an ID card, deprives them of virtually any inalienable right and pulls strings on their lives from behind the scenes without their knowing about it.  That is not the kind of society we want to become.

 

Besides the obvious threat to freedom, the REAL ID Act can be viewed as just another example of Big Government.  In practice the REAL ID Act would require an expansive and expensive bureaucracy to operate.  The bill for this would be sent to the common taxpayer-just another example of the Neoconservatives failing to live up to the limited government promises of the 1994 Contract with America.  The Act is also not in line with the principles of the Constitution-with the Federal Government over-imposing itself on state-run systems, which is counter to the spirit of the 10th Amendment.

 

There is hope for opposing the act.  18 states have already refused to comply with this law of the federal government and legislation is pending in 20 more.  This means that we may potentially have ¾ of all states challenging the National ID Card.  Not only does the REAL ID Act rely on the state governments to enforce it, but states have been able to nullify laws passed by the Federal Government in the past.  In the late 1790s, when Adams was President and Jefferson was Vice President, the Federal Government passed a law that prohibited criticism of the government by common citizens.  Jefferson, who was actually the political rival of Adams and his Vice President, due to the electoral system at the time, took it to the states and the states subsequently decided that the law in question was unconstitutional and therefore nullified it.  With Ron Paul as president, the executive branch would no longer pursue the standards of the REAl ID Act.  His term would begin in January 2009, almost a year before the Act takes effect-and plenty of time for action.

Sphere: Related Content

The Significance of December 16th

Published by
MichaelC
at November 30, 2007 in Uncategorized. 2 Comments

234 years ago, this December 16th, American colonists placed over 300 casks and over 40 tons of tea, which they were unjustly taxed on through the Stamp Act, into Boston Harbor. On the anniversary of this heroic event this year-several thousand Ron Paul supporters will place millions of dollars worth of cash, which they are unjustly taxed on through the Federal Income Tax and the ever-evasive Inflation Tax (which, as Doctor Paul says, no one talks about) into his very own campaign fund. Both actions precipitate a revolution of freedom that will change not only American, but Human History—forever!

I was talking to my fellow campaign volunteer-Bob, on November 5th, our first big fundraiser. I said to him: “Did you see his latest fundraising numbers on the website?” He replied “yeah, I checked this morning after I donated-it’s what-two and a half million?” I stared in awe at the screen-it was about five and a half million-midday! I informed him and we both knew we were experiencing history first-hand.

As Samuel Adams said: it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in people’s minds. The Founding Fathers were that minority and so are we! Each and every one of us should be proud to be a part of this historic movement. There is something very important to realize that not every Ron Paul supporter I have corresponded with gets. This struggle we are involved in neither begins nor ends with Ron Paul-nor with us. What is going on now that we fight is nothing new. If you have seen Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, then you understand the dangers of too much power in the hands of government in the name of “War.” Lew Rockwell speaks of never-ending war and government’s desire to retain power through it. That is why we have wars on drugs, terrorism, poverty, etc. Curtailing of civil liberties during the time of war has happened in the Civil War, World War I and II and the current war. History often repeats itself. Perhaps the word “revolution” is misused in the name of freedom. For “revolution” implies something happening once. But this does not characterize defense of freedom. It must not only be one, but kept and protected. As Ben Franklin described our Constitutional system-“It’s a republic IF you can KEEP it!” Freedom is not “won” once, but is preserved and protected by every generation-or else lost. Ours is no different.

A few days ago I engaged in an interpersonal conversation with a career political strategist. We had a pretty fun conversation involving our mutual history of politics. The conversation eventually drifted toward the current primary phase. This yielded what was, to me, by far the most encouraging part of the dialogue. This man was a lifelong democrat and no friend to Ron Paul. We knew of each other’s political leanings, though. I said to him “I think that Ron Paul has a realistic shot of winning the nomination and the White House-people just don’t know it yet.” He replied “so do I.” If only everyone were as open-minded as that, our battle would be a lot easier. Then again, battles as important as this one rarely are-nor should they be-easy.

Sphere: Related Content

Get Out the Ron Paul Vote

Published by
MichaelC
at November 13, 2007 in Supporters and Uncategorized. 1 Comment

Ron Paul is faring higher now than he was before the November 5th fundraising surge. The latest polls show Ron Paul at 7% in New Hampshire and at around 6% nation-wide. This is of course a poll taken from all possible respondents. It is intended to be representative of the whole. In online polls and straw polls, Ron Paul’s percentage is significantly higher. In fact…he dominates them. He has all along. Some of them he wins with 80-90% of the vote. Ron Paul supporters know to use the internet advantage to its full potential and are there at every poll, which anyone can vote in (usually.) So Ron Paul is currently on the rise-we now see 6-7% at one end and 80-90 at the other. And this will continue to grow. On Primary Day I think that we will see something in between.

The online polls and straw polls are nice to look at and they provide a good image for the campaign…Ron Paul winning nearly every one of them so far. The media tries hard as they can to ignore the message…but they can only go so far when the polls are consistent as they are.

The polls conducted by the media and other groups are not completely accurate and this is an important piece of knowledge when predicting the outcome of this election. For instance, when “likely voters” is on the polling label, it means that the poll is of people who voted in the last primary election-which comprises less than 10% of those eligible and among these are the most flamboyant of neoconservative Bush-supporters. This can hardly be considered representative during this competitive election cycle. But more important is the issue of VOTER TURNOUT. Elections are not merely about spreading messages, but getting your voters to the polls. Many Republican primary voters this year are disillusioned with the lineup of candidates that they have to choose from-and I can’t blame them. Statistics show that the Democrats are more satisfied with their candidates on average. Voter turnout is typically low in primaries and caucuses since it is not seen as being as important as the general election. However, as shown in straw polls and online polls. Ron Paul supporters can tend to be more motivated than their counterparts. They will most likely turn out to vote in higher numbers than those who support the other candidates, yielding a higher percentage in the primary.

Now that he has the money to compete, it is time for Ron Paul to make a push in New Hampshire. New Hampshire has a strong “live free or die” libertarian attitude that can be capitalize upon. Now is the time for TV ads and campaigning. He already had the diehard supporters, which I count myself among…so now he’ll start to attract the moderate block of voters, too. With the message spreading that shouldn’t be hard. Thank God people still love the message of freedom and there is indeed hope for America. The strong message will show consistent rise up until primary day. I believe that even us big fans are in for a pleasant surprise-they say 50% of New Hampshire voters pick their candidate in the last week before the election. So let’s get ourselves and get the moderates to the polls-offer them a ride-whatever it takes. I am optimistic.

Sphere: Related Content

Ron, Ron and the Republican Party

Published by
MichaelC
at November 8, 2007 in Republicans. 0 Comments

Watching the Republican candidates for the 2008 party presidential nomination talk gets kind of repetitive after a while.  Most of them support the War in Iraq, want to continue President Bush’s neoconservative policies and liken themselves to Ronald Reagan.  “I’m a true Reagan conservative.”  “No!  I’m a true Reagan conservative.”  Many of the candidates of today’s Republican Party like to characterize their leadership and platform with the Reagan Era-the supposed Golden Age for Republicans.  Ron Paul is different.  Ron Paul supported Reagan before it was the cool thing for a Republican to do-as a delegate to the 1976 national convention when Reagan challenged incumbent president Gerald Ford.  Ron Paul also does not refrain from criticizing Reagan in the places he went wrong-huge deficit spending and intervention in South America.

 

The infamous modern welfare state manifested itself during the 1930s under FDR.  The welfare state, which is a precursor to socialism, called for ever higher tax burdens on the American worker and increased government intervention in people’s lives.  The supposed “conservatives” in much of the 20th century made peace with the welfare state.  Coming to what would be known as the “Reagan Revolution” in the 1980s, President Reagan halted the growth of the welfare state.  With a little charisma and much-needed common sense, he said “government is not the solution, government is the problem.”

 

A “revolution,” by definition, must bring something new to the table.  This is not present in other Republican candidates-they are the same old business-as-usual.  While they claim the general platform of the Reagan Revolution, they do not innovate or expand upon it.  Just as Reagan helped to halt the growth of the welfare state-Ron Paul can finally shrink it.  This includes the neoconservative philosophy of policing the world-another form of welfare state.  Instead of mimicking Reagan like the other candidates like to do, therefore chasing after an impossible ideal, Ron Paul expands and innovates on what the Reagan Revolution helped to accomplish-thus creating a revolution of his own.  I assume that many of the readers of this blog have seen the “Ron Paul Revolution” signs.

 

Both revolutionary candidates were preceded by more mediocre Republicans.  Nixon campaigned on ending the Vietnam War-which he started to do originally-but later expanded it.  Our current president also campaigned with the promise not to intervene like with Kosovo, but we all see how that turned out.  Reagan employed an out-with-the-old, in-with-the-new philosophy that I am hoping Ron Paul will do as well.  Reagan had no need for the old elite that dominated the Nixon and Ford administrations.  “They have experience, yes, but it is experience in screwing up.”  Instead he hired young, enthusiastic believers in limited government (like many of Ron Paul’s supporters.)  This can help a revolution work.

 

There are still many naysayers of the Ron Paul Revolution.  I’d like to compare the current election campaign in 2008 to that of 1976 for a moment.  The 1976 campaign also featured a candidate far behind the frontrunners who came from behind to win the nomination and the presidency: Jimmy Carter.  For the record, Ron Paul is not comparable in any way, shape or form to Jimmy Carter as a politician-only his place in the electoral contest.  Carter, as disappointing a president as he was, learned to exploit an advantage for himself that gave him the edge over “top tier” candidates seeking his party’s nomination.  For Carter it was the new primary system and the modern media.  For Ron Paul it is the internet.  Ron Paul entered this race a long shot candidate-but has built a grassroots campaign largely through online popularity-which has helped him fundraise, get interviewed by the media and build the support of a recognized major candidate.  After all, what has happened so far in the Ron Paul campaign has been nothing short of phenomenal.

 

So how has the internet helped this dark horse candidate so much?  The internet is the newest, most personalized and most interactive form of media technology and it is a good medium to get to voters.  Arianna Huffington, former candidate in the California Recall of 2003, said “It was clear to me, the 2008 campaign was going to be dominated by what’s happening online — new technologies, new media like never before.”  Ron Paul saw an opportunity and capitalized on this resource, more than other candidates have.  This resource has not been a factor in past elections so it is only natural that they overlook it.  I believe that in all future campaigns the internet will play a stronger roll.  After all, the thought of a major candidate disregarding the primary or the news media in today’s elections is unthinkable.

 

So once he wins the nomination…there is still the general election against a democrat (probably Hillary.)  During the general election, people will already know much of Ron Paul’s platform from the nomination race.  I think once he has time to go over it more in depth in the debates, a victory will be in sight.  As certain fellow campaigners of mine have said, “I cannot wait to see Ron Paul debate Hillary.”

Sphere: Related Content

Close
E-mail It