Author Archive for peter

FreeRepublic.com Doesn’t Dig Free Speech

This morning I commented on a rather illogical anti-Paul post by ‘connell’ on the Free Republic website. My two comments, #59 and #60, posted under my username ‘rudynoir,’ were removed within 30 minutes. I am unsure what to make of this, since I felt that my comments were rather mild compared to some others. They did happen to represent an opposing viewpoint, though. Could it be that the “conservatives” on this site can’t tolerate an opposing viewpoint? Judge for yourself:

Deleted Comment #59 (in response to Comment #17)

To: MNJohnnie

MNJohnnie,

The world situation certainly has changed since 9/11, thanks to us. Iran supported us after the attacks, and we turned our backs on them. Now instead of having a treaty with Iran, we will be invading them. Good call, Cheney. Glad to know that my kids will be inheriting never-ending war and unchecked executive powers.

Oh and Iraq? Everyone knew there were no WMD. Well, everyone except for people who listen to fearmongers. Too bad that was almost everyone, including the likes of Hillary Clinton. Now those same people are “warning” us about so-called Islamofascism. Americans are not going to keep buying this, guys. Contrary to what Norman Podhoretz might have you believe, Iranians don’t actually want to chew on our eyeballs so they can suck out our souls.

This is why Ron Paul raised $5m last quarter and will outraise Romney in Q4. Americans want integrity and trust back in government. They also want their Constitutional rights back.

You’ve been warned.

Peter | RonPaulNewEngland.com


Posted on 10/28/2007 12:20:52 AM PDT by rudynoir

Deleted Comment #60 (in response to Comment #51)

To: Dead Corpse

Dead Corpse,

So you’re saying that covert US intervention like our overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953 had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks we’ve seen over the last 40-50 years?

Interesting theory. But how is it based in reality?

Peter | RonPaulNewEngland.com


Posted on 10/28/2007 12:26:40 AM PDT by rudynoir

Sphere: Related Content

Why I Quit The Democratic Party For Ron Paul

Today I received an Acknowledgment Notice from the Boston Election Department via the US Postal Service. It was a standard, unassuming, laser-printed form letter informing me that they received my affidavit of voter registration. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Nothing, that is, except for one phrase which gave me a sudden mental shock and made me gasp every time I looked at it: “Your party affiliation has been changed from DEMOCRAT to REPUBLICAN.”

This was not a mistake. This was a decision I made after a long, excruciating deliberation with myself. Which is exactly why it was so shocking to me.

I grew up in an upper-middle class area of New Jersey and attended a highly regarded private school there for nine years. Though I hardly appreciated it at the time, the education I received was excellent and I am thankful for it. In fact I didn’t appreciate the breadth and depth of my learning until I went away to college (unlike nearly half of my private school classmates, I did not attend an Ivy). Yet I have also come to understand that the education I so highly value came with its own biases, not unlike the regional biases that came with growing up in the Garden State.

Most people in my little part of New Jersey didn’t like country music, for example. So I too, by default, grew up believing that I didn’t like it without ever questioning why. I’d complain when the bus driver played it without ever giving it a chance. Later in life, while attending a small liberal arts college located in the poorest county in New York state, country suddenly became cool. Nearly all of my friends and acquaintances (most of them being preppy kids from prosperous New England towns) instantly and without warning embraced this seemingly alien genre of music. I too grew to love it, and it soon dawned on me that perhaps I was more a product of my environment than I liked to believe.

I experienced a similar epiphany with politics recently. Many of my private school classmates (despite their wealthy and often Republican parents), and nearly all of my teachers, held very liberal views. Even our graduation speaker was an outspoken critic of the death penalty. And so it was that I grew up proud to hail from an environment that seemed to care so deeply about social justice.

My outspoken Republican classmates, which I could count on one one hand, were acknowledged by the rest of us to be either sociopaths or unassuming victims of brainwashing by their parents. Their attitude toward the underprivileged was hardly empathetic, and we felt justified in demonizing them for this reason alone. And if Republicans were the enemy of the underprivileged, it seemed to follow that their Democratic counterparts were their saviors. Of course this conclusion was based on fallacious logic, but this did not occur to me until much later in life. I did not realize at the time that good intentions do not automatically lead to good results (in fact, they rarely do).

When I discovered Ron Paul last year, I was forced to rethink my world view. It was a painful experience, but I slowly learned that the traditional Republican values of small government (which have since been abandoned by the Grand Old Party) and low taxation do in fact have merit. They are not, as I used to believe, merely a rationalization that the privileged use to justify their grip on money and power at the expense of the lower and middle classes. In fact, I would learn that some of the Federal institutions we don’t often think about, such as the Federal Reserve, play a far more important role in increasing the gap between the rich and the poor than the rich do themselves.

I was also forced to consider the possibility that most federal programs and departments, no matter how well-intended, do not benefit The People. More often than not, in fact, they are money pits which exacerbate the very problems they were intended to address. I was shocked to learn that prior to 1913 there was no national income tax (nor was there inflation), and that we did just fine without it. And when I learned that the Founding Fathers warned us against the very dangers we face today as a result of an increasingly centralized and powerful Federal government, I came face-to-face with my liberal biases and realized that I could no longer justify my old views. But I wasn’t ready to embrace Republicans of the Giuliani and Romney variety either. They were not true conservatives. So where did the small-government Republicans go?

The problem with our two party system is that is forces each party to take a side on one issue. This results in parties which have arbitrary values that are often inconsistent. How, for example, can you justify a pro-life view when your party also promotes the death penalty? It comes down to the same thing–state sanctioned death is either right or wrong. To endorse one form of death but not the other means that you either hold a double standard or that you are a hypocrite. In fact, most people do not side completely with one party or the other but feel compelled to choose the closest fit or simply go with the party that supports the issue that is most important to them. This allows politicians with ulterior motives to exploit the resulting gap between personal and party values, or worse, allow themselves to be bribed by lobbyists that seek to exploit this gap.

This has resulted in a worrisome shift in party values. The small-government Republicans disappeared because they were of no use to the lobbyists, who depend on a strong Federal government with a healthy source of revenue. Thus in the modern Republican Party, greed has usurped values.

I see only two solutions: we either need to get beyond this two-sizes fit all model and provide some competition to the existing parties (which would unfortunately require some dangerous tinkering with our Constitution), or we can simply change the parties from the inside out with our votes. The good news is that the GOP in its current manifestation has been so damaged by the Bush Administration that it must change or it will cease to exist. This isn’t the first time a party’s values would change drastically. The Republican party of today would be hardly recognizable to a Republican from 1854 (the year the GOP was founded) or even 1954 (prior to the Civil Rights movement).

We have a chance to help change the Republican Party change for the better and I intend to do so; the Democrats are stuck in the status quo to such an extent that they are not seizing a golden opportunity to regain power by taking the bold anti-war stance which voters are demanding. Since neither party is giving the American people what they want, we will see some radical changes in party politics very soon. This is indeed a rare moment in history: we have an opportunity to restore values to politics.

It will take some time for me to get used to calling myself a Republican. The ick factor isn’t likely to go away soon. But I know it is the right thing to do, because here is what I have learned about our two-party system:

Democrats have the right motives (social justice) but the wrong approach (central government). Republicans have the right approach (free market) but the wrong motives (maintaining a plutocracy).

Ron Paul is unique because he has the right motive and the right approach. He really does care about the middle class, and it would benefit greatly from his Presidency. I also happen to believe that Ron Paul represents the future of the Republican Party, whether he wins the primaries or not. He is in the right place at the right time, delivering a message that Americans are hungry for. I feel lucky to be a part of it.

I sincerely believe that Ron Paul represents our best hope for a better future, but to me its more personal that that; Ron Paul represents my own hope to proudly call myself a Republican.

Sphere: Related Content

RE: “An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful”

from: Pete Nowicki <peter.christopher@gmail.com>
to: politicalcapital@cnbc.com
date: Oct 12, 2007 12:39 PM
subject: Response to “An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful”
mailed-by: gmail.com

Dear Mr. Wastler,

I appreciate your response to the concerns that Ron Paul supporters had after the CNBC poll was taken down on Wednesday. Your words struck me as quite sincere and I understand why you did what you did.

However, I do feel that there could be an underlying bias at CNBC and other media outlets that I’d like you to consider (and I’ve never met a human being without a bias, myself included, so please don’t take this personally). You say that “a well-organized and committed ‘few’ can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of ‘the many.’” It’s a valid point, but I feel that this statement rests on an incorrect assumption, that the sentiments of “the many” are a better predictor of which candidate has a better chance of winning the primaries.

Generally speaking, it is preferable to have a broad sample than a narrow one. However, “the many” are not necessarily a good predictor in this case because they represent the sentiment of the population as a whole, only 20% of which vote in the primaries. Most people don’t pay any attention to politics this early in the game and primarily rely on name recognition, which in turn is determined by the amount of exposure the candidates get on TV. Thus you have as much as 80% of your data reflecting what essentially amounts to media bias (which is inevitable, since everyone has a bias). And since Ron Paul did not start receiving a proportionate share of media attention until earlier this month when he announced his Q3 fund raising numbers, it was unfair to rely on “the many” to determine whether it was appropriate to take down that poll.

You also say that your “poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign” and then rule out the first possibility in the following paragraph. But the poll was not the target of a campaign, at least not in the traditional sense. There was no order coming down from the top saying “let’s have a good showing in this poll.” In fact, the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign has never sent such a request to its supporters. These kinds of turnouts are truly self-organized. These are people from all walks of life and all parts of the country spontaneously acting in unison, something that would not be possible today without the internet.

I wish I could say otherwise, but Ron Paul is not a master of internet campaigning (in fact, neither he nor his supporters are very SEO-savvy, as this post from SEOmoz.org suggests). To the contrary, it is his words that are creating this bone fide grassroots movement (one that is presently very close to “tipping” in the Gladwellian sense), and he will tell you this himself. He knows better than anyone that he owes his success not to Ron Paul the man but but to “the message” he has been speaking about for 30 years. Americans today are hungry for the truth, and he is the only one (at least on the Republican side) willing to speak it.

So I ask you to re-examine what you really want from your “show of hand” poll. Is it better for it to reflect the unsolicited opinion of the general public, 80% of whom are not really interested in politics and haven’t taken the time to examine the candidates and issues in any significant detail, or for it to reflect the opinion of those who actually care enough about the issues we face as a country to actually do something about it?

When pondering this question, it might be wise to remember that as late as July 1776, a mere 21% of Philadelphians were in favor of declaring independence from England. It doesn’t take a majority to start a revolution.

Sincerely,

Peter Nowicki
Founder & Contributor
www.RonPaulNewEngland.com

Sphere: Related Content

A Vote For Hillary Is A Vote For War

Two weeks ago, Hillary Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment in support of military actions against Iran. Democratic rival Mike Gravel immediately called her out on it in a nationally televised Presidential debate. Her response? Laughter (cackling, actually).

Frankly, I am baffled. Why aren’t Democrats outraged by this? Hillary has said that she wouldn’t have voted for the Iraq War if she knew then what she knows now. Yet here she is, voting for war again. Are the Democrats’ attention spans really that short? I took her Iraq vote to mean that she didn’t have the balls to stand up to the President, but she just proved me wrong by virtually coming out of the closet as a Neocon.

And where are the anti-war Democrats? Ron Paul raised over $5 million in Q3, why can’t Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich or Chris Dodd do the same? Why are Democrats blindly goose-stepping behind their war-mongering front-runner, even after she revealed who she really was? I can’t believe for a second that Democrats are suddenly pro-war. So what gives?

Ron Paul got it right in last night’s MSNBC debates when he said that a nuclear Iran does not pose a threat to us. Think about it, China has nuclear plants and nukes. What makes Iran, a much smaller and weaker country than communist China (which happens to own us, by the way), more dangerous? Furthermore, what gives the US, “the greatest violator of the non-proliferation treaty,” (thank you Mike Gravel) the right to tell Iran what it can and can’t do? They have not declared war on us, nor have they threatened to.

There is only one possible way for the “same people who told us Iraq would be a cakewalk” (thank you Ron Paul) to sell their next war to us, and that’s to convince us that they are evil and dangerous “Islamofascists.” But what if they’re right? Can we risk another 9/11?

Lucky for us, they couldn’t be more wrong. Iran is simply pissed off, and with good reason.

First we overthrew the democratically-elected administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953 because he wasn’t friendly to our oil companies. Then, thrity years later, we gave our buddy Saddam next door hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment and billions of dollars in economic aid to support him during the Iran-Iraq war, conveniently looking the other way when he used chemical weapons against Iranian civilians and even his own people. Now we are harassing Iran about wanting to build nuclear reactors that they are legally allowed to build. Wouldn’t you be pissed off too?

Guess what? They also hate us for everything we have done in the rest of the Middle East, not the least of which are the Clinton-era sanctions and bombings which killed 500,000 Iraqi children (Madeleine Albright even went as far as to say in a 1996 CBS interview that it was worth it; how does that make us look?).

This is not just about the Bush Administration. Our foreign policy has been corrupt for longer than you can imagine. I am currently reading Blowback by Chalmers Johnson, about the history of our Imperialistic foreign policy. In the first chapter he asks why we still operate cold-war era military bases in places like Italy. Does anyone stop to think why we are behaving less and less like a Beacon of Liberty and more and more like an Empire?

So here’s the other thing about Hillary. She’s being advised by Richard Holbrooke, a slightly toned-down version of Norman Podhoretz, Giuliani’s neocon foreign policy advisor (the same guy who goes around ranting about how the Islamofacists are out to kill us). Is this who the Democrats want deciding their foreign policy?

You may be wondering why I would want to bring up Hillary on a Ron Paul blog three months before the primaries. Two reasons: first, I think that many open-minded, rational people who voted Democratic in the past (like me) would in fact support Ron Paul if they took an honest look at him and forgot for a second that he is (gasp!) a Republican. Maybe they’ll finally notice that Hillary is a neocon (quietly being advised by Bush) and realize that maybe, just maybe, a non-interventionist Republican is preferable to a war-mongering Democrat. Second, Google Trends tell us that we are in for a Hillary-Paul Face Off. We need to prepare for the bizarre but increasingly likely possibility of an anti-war Republican underdog taking on a pro-war, insider Democrat.

The Bush Administration still hasn’t told us the real reason we went to war. Was it really about oil or national security? Perhaps it was about spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun? Or maybe it was to stop Islamofascim from destroying America?

Don’t believe any of this for a second. These are are rationalizations at best, lies & propaganda at worst. The truth is that this war and the next one are about empire building. Hillary Clinton is part of that empire, whether she knows it or not. I hope Democrats realize this before it’s too late.

I leave you with this quote from Hermann Göring, a leading member of the Nazi Party, second in command of the Third Reich, and commander of the Luftwaffe:

Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. …Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Sound familiar?

Sphere: Related Content

Why “Ron Paul Can’t Win” Won’t Last

A few months ago I reconnected with an old friend with whom I haven’t spoken in close to 12 years. He happens to be my former boss and a Reagan Republican. In the spring of 1995 he offered me my first sales job while I was abroad, during a year off I took between high school and college. At the time, he was the publisher of several English language business papers in central and eastern Europe.

I was pleased to find out that while we had been out of touch he had become a publisher of a prominent conservative publication in Washington. Since then he has left the publishing business and is once again abroad. He sounded disgusted with the current state of the Republican party.

A few days ago I asked him what his conservative friends in the US think of Ron Paul. His response was “they think he is simply unelectable due to lack of mass name recognition.”

This, of course, did not surprise me.

As a Ron Paul supporter I am used to hearing the “Ron Paul can’t win” objection. Despite the fact that he is finally getting decent coverage in the mainstream press, even positive pieces about him throw in a caveat; they usually say something along the lines of “he is an interesting, nice guy with some great ideas BUT….” Usually this “but” is followed by a phrase along the lines of “he doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell.”

This widespread dismissal has been driving many Ron Paul supporters nuts because it creates a self-fulling prophecy. If everyone thinks that everyone else thinks that he can’t win, well then he won’t. And no one wants to throw their vote away, right?

Some of us suspect a conspiracy by the media and the corporatocracy that controls it. I don’t fall into that camp–in my view everyone in the media who dismisses him simply doesn’t believe he can win because nobody else seems to–just like everyone else. This feeds on itself because no one is willing to go out on a limb and possibly risk their career to say “wait a minute, I think that Ron Paul doesn’t just have some good ideas, I think he has a chance.” It always takes a leap of faith to change the status quo.

But there is good news. Lately I’ve come to realize that this objection won’t be valid much longer as more and more people realize that he does in fact have a chance. “Ron Paul is unelectable” was a valid concern several months ago when he was completely on the margins, but since then his campaign has raised a healthy sum of money and is winning more straw polls than any candidate except Romney. Things are changing–perhaps slowly for now, but Ron Paul’s campaign will reach a Tipping Point soon. This “tip” will occur in the next few months and when it does it will catch nearly everyone by surprise.

There are three factors which will enable this to happen:

1. The Gen Y vote

A full half of Generation Y (born 1980-2000) will be of voting age by next year and no one really knows what impact they will have on the 2008 elections. A few months ago, Fortune ran a cover story about how different twentysomethings behave in the workplace, but the political aspect of this story has not been covered to any significant degree. One thing is certain–in 2004 the Gen Yers who were of voting age showed up to the polls in droves. And now that their numbers have doubled and they are a little older and wiser, they are poised to shake things up.

Contrast this with the the fact that my own generation (Gen X) has a well-deserved reputation for being politically apathetic, and this will only make this next generation’s impact even greater and more surprising. They are very different from the rest of us and will wield close 40 million potential votes in 2008. Given how connected they are to each other online (specifically Facebook), they are more than capable of politically mobilizing themselves in unprecedented ways. Combine that with the fact that they don’t like the way we’ve run things and we might be looking at nothing less than a revolution.

2. Campaign Fundraising

Dollars speak louder than words, and the Ron Paul Campaign raised 5 million of them in Q3! He has the cash to be in this for the long haul and is likely to “tip” very soon.

3. Iraq

There is not a single other Republican Presidential candidate, and only two other Democratic ones (Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich), who are talking about an immediate exit strategy from Iraq. Ron Paul is correct about his party; Republicans have lost heir way. These former non-interventionists are ready to return to their roots. If Dr. Paul can leverage this argument to win over enough of them who are tired of where the current administration has led them, he will take the primaries.

As far as the general elections go, nearly half of Americans think we should get out altogether. If Ron Paul is lucky enough to run against Hillary Clinton, it’ll be a landslide.

So why aren’t the other candidates listening to the people? The Iraq “war” was an unconstitutional and illegal invasion and we accomplished our stated objective years ago. Why are we still there? Why have we allowed thousands of our troops to pay for our honor (thanks Mike Huckabee) with their blood? Is that what they mean by supporting the troops? I’d rather support them by getting them home.

It’s hard for me to understand why it isn’t obvious to everyone that Iraq really is the key issue for 2008. Why don’t the other candidates get this yet? Before I get too worked up about this I must remind myself that this is actually good for Ron Paul. Tom Eddlem, a fellow Boston MeetUp member, summed it up to me this way:

The war in Iraq is already unpopular, as evidenced by the mid-term elections last year. It’s going to sink the Republican Party by November of next year, unless the Republicans nominate Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the only Republican who was right on Iraq from the beginning. Recent polling numbers indicate that even a majority of Republicans recognize that the United States needs to leave Iraq within six months, and no other Republican candidate is for a pull-out.

So let’s not worry too much about this “Ron Paul Can’t Win” thing. The question that people will soon be asking is not “why should I vote for Ron Paul if he doesn’t stand a chance of winning?” but rather “why would I want to waste my vote on those other Republicans who are guaranteed to lose in November?”

Sphere: Related Content

Have We Lost Our Minds?

Did anyone notice Rudy Giuliani smirking during last night’s debate? The first time I noticed it was when Ron Paul responded to Chris Wallace’s patronizing question about whether we should be taking our marching orders from Al Qaeda. Ron Paul’s response:

We should take our marching orders from our Constitution…we should not go to war without a declaration, we should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion, we’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law.

In my experience, smirking is something people do when they feel threatened (when reason fails, try condescension!). So is chuckling in this case, and Giuliani wasn’t the only one chuckling while Chris Wallace asked his question. It sounded like some of the other moderators were too.

It astounds me that someone running for the highest office in the land would chuckle and smirk while debating such a serious issue. Ron Paul’s response, despite it’s perhaps overzealous delivery, was constructed with reason. His argument during the famous blowback exchange with Giuliani was also constructed with reason. Giuliani’s response then?

That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11th, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq.

Wait, that’s extraordinary? Either this man does not believe that our actions have consequences or he is purposely deceiving us. I am not sure which is worse, but it doesn’t really matter.

The problem with this exchange is that Giuliani’s argument is predicated on a fallacious belief about human nature. Psychology tells us that terrorists act out of reasons that seem rational to them, not out of evil (whatever that is). Blaming the 9/11 attacks on sociopaths or radical Islam or people who “hate our freedoms” goes against everything we know about human nature.

In general, people want peace. But when they grow up in an environment without hope, surrounded by poverty, when they witness extreme violence as children, and when they are recruited for a terrorist cause before they are emotionally developed enough to know any better, they feel justified in their actions when they pursue terrorist tactics. Can you really know what you would do in their shoes, in the complete absence of hope and in an atmosphere of continual injustice and powerlessness? Can you say with 100% certainty that you wouldn’t be mad as hell and want to do something about it? And could you blame the slightly more reasonable people around you who tolerate or even encourage your behavior because there are no other options?

I highly recommend this quick read about The Psychology of Terrorism.

We should not need psychology to tell us these things. I think most reasonable, emotionally mature people could empathize with the desperation these people feel if they opened themselves up to the experience. How could you not feel sad for a 10 year old boy who is forced to watch his mother get raped before being brutally murdered? And when he grows up to passionately hate whoever he blames for this injustice, even if this hatred is misdirected, can you really call him evil?

But let’s get back to the real issue at hand. What Ron Paul is saying is that our foreign policy was responsible for the conditions which breed terrorism. In this case it’s because we had troops stationed in Islam’s holiest land while we bombed Iraq between the Gulf Wars, killing innocent civilians in the process. In fact, since WWII we have toppled countless democratically elected governments just when their countries needed them most and usually replaced them with bloodthirsty despots who promised to be friendly to our business interests (at the expense of the people). Saddam Hussein comes to mind–it’s ironic that we invaded Iraq to liberate the very people we once enabled him to oppress.

Skeptical? Our own government has admitted to it in some cases, such as the coup d’état we staged in Iran in 1953 to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh after he tried to nationalize the oil industry. We did the same thing the following year in Guatemala when we overthrew democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán. We continued these type of policies into the 1960s, the 70s, the 80s and 90s (and this list omits our involvement in Africa plus a few assassinations that the CIA was most likely involved in). There was blowback then (1979 hostage crisis) and there is blowback now (9/11). We reap what we sow, and blowback is a bitch.

Jon Stewart recently summed up our foreign policy record in the Middle East in what was supposed to be a defense of Barack Obama’s lack of experience, but which sounded more like an endorsement of Ron Paul. This is a must see (and quite funny too).

Bottom line: we can’t allow Giuliani-style thinking to win. Our foreign policy is broken, it’s usually unconstitutional, and if we don’t change it soon we’re going to be in big trouble. Don’t listen to the fear-mongering politicians who needlessly put our troops in harm’s way while quietly taking away your liberties. Don’t let them tell you that the situation is more complicated than you realize and that thinking you can just pull out of Iraq is naive. It’s not. Sure, getting out of Iraq will be messy, but it’s better than the alternative and in the long run our grand-children will thank us.

I hope you’ll forgive me for the cliché, but we owe it to them.

Sphere: Related Content

Mojica: Money Will Be The Death Of Us

The following is a letter to the editor from our very own Sue Mojica (a very dedicated member of the Boston Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group) which was published in the MetroWest Daily News on August 10th. We are publishing it here in its entirety; the last paragraph (in italics) was omitted.

To the Editor:

A bridge rated “structurally deficient” collapses and speculation abounds…how could this have happened? As our hearts go out to the people affected by this terrible tragedy, I would like to offer a little-discussed but very basic reason for the bridge collapse in Minneapolis. We have too much money.

A surprising statement, I know, but consider this: when an economy is based solely on fiat money, as ours has been for forty plus years because of a process set in motion some fifty years before that, there is never enough, because there is always too much. More units of currency = less value per unit = prices rise = calls for more currency = more units of currency = less value, prices rise, etc., a literal death-spiral to any society.

Consider what happened during the last decade of the 18th century when France tried such a system. The first several issues of paper money had a good effect, but after that it was all downhill to a ruined economy and a demoralized society. Their only recourse was to destroy the machinery, the plates and the paper, which they did on February 18th, 1796. No wonder our founders saw fit to prohibit the use of paper money as a tender in payment of debts (Art I Sec 10).

As I write this, I fear that we are now nearer to the end than the beginning of the inevitable course of fiat money. As the currency depreciates so do our values and the very stuff of our lives. There was enough money to build the Minneapolis bridge some forty years ago, but now there isn’t enough to either maintain the original or build a new and safer one if necessary. That doesn’t make sense, until you understand not only what has happened to our money but also how our relationship to government has changed.

During these last thirty to forty years our previously somewhat limited government has become very much unlimited. This is not surprising since as the money depreciates we all become needier, and the Federal Government, having given itself unlimited capacity to print currency, steps in to help. So, Minneapolis bridge, get in line with all the rest of us who no longer have the means to take care of ourselves. There is no money for you THIS year.

As it turns out however, that last statement might soon no longer be true. I wrote this on Friday morning and by that evening reports were coming in that there may be money for the Minneapolis bridge this year after all. Congress is currently considering an appropriation for emergency repairs and reconstruction, but first members of the House of Representatives must agree to waive the $100 million limitation on such appropriations in order to approve the estimated $150 to $350 million price tag for this one bridge alone. Something is seriously wrong here.

There is a silver lining however, and that is the one candidate in the 2008 Presidential election campaign who publicly acknowledges our predicament and promises to do something about it. His name is Ron Paul and his depth of understanding offers true hope for America.

Susan Mojica
Framingham

Sphere: Related Content

How This Site Came To Be

I am thrilled to be writing the first weblog post for The Ron Paul Beacon and have so much I want to say (as do the other contributors), but first things first.

Let’s start with a few words about this site. The idea behind The Ron Paul Beacon was conceived in July 2007 by a few members of The Boston Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group, a patchwork collection of individuals from very different backgrounds who share the same passion for Ron Paul’s ideas and are trying to do everything they can to get him elected President in 2008. This site is part of a multi-faceted approach to raising awareness of Dr. Paul’s Presidential campaign in the New England area. In addition to creating, maintaining and contributing to www.RonPaulNewEngland.com, we will be coordinating a Facebook advertising campaign targeting young voters in the area.

My own introduction to Ron Paul came in early 2006 when I came across a few speeches on gold and foreign policy on his congressional website. At the time I was gripped by the idea of Peak Oil after reading an article about it in Fortune magazine. I went through a period of shock when I realized that I would probably see TEOTWAWKI within my own lifetime.

After realizing that our current economic model is not sustainable, I delved into research about economics, a subject I regarded with suspicion ever since my high school economics teacher failed to explain to me in plain English how money was created from nothing (later on I would realize that the process surprisingly simple, and that “the study of money…is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it“).

As my interest in and understanding of Peak Oil and economics evolved I was soon convinced that not only was our economic system unsustainable, but also that our very monetary system was unsustainable as well. I was surprised to learn that there were alternatives to the systems we’ve become accustomed to over the last century, and that is how I came upon Ron Paul.

The more I read about him the more I began to suspect that this man was going to be a prominent figure in my childrens’ history books. His words echoed those of the Founding Fathers and stirred up feelings of patriotism in me that I hadn’t felt since I was young (and this was a mere 5 years after 9/11). So when I learned that he was running for President earlier this year, I knew I needed to get involved. He has things to say that the American public desperately needs to hear, and I hope I can do my part to spread the word.

If you are new to Ron Paul, click on some of the tabs at the bottom of the banner graphic near the top of this page, or check out some of the articles and links in the Media Feed to the right (linked to a del.icio.us account a few of us Meetup members contribute to). If you have any constructive criticism or ideas about how we can better get the word out, please drop us a note at admin@ronpaulnewengland.com.

We hope you’ll stick around! It’s going to be an interesting ride.

Sphere: Related Content




Close
E-mail It