Archive for the 'Political Issues' Category

Who Are The Ron Paulers?

Published by
nonrate
at November 9, 2007 in Supporters, Primaries and Political Issues. 4 Comments

You may have recently begun to read about this Ron Paul character in the news. In addition to wondering who Ron Paul is, you may also be curious who these Ron Paul people are? Who are these guys running around frantically flooding website comments, waving signs and contributing to record breaking “money bombs?” And why do they care so much about this Ron Paul guy who barely registers in the polls? Well, I felt it was time you found out from the mouth of one of them.

Ron Paul, currently running for the slot of President of the United States, is a 10 time Texas Congressman running on the Republican ticket. Many call him out as a Libertarian. It’s true that he ran for President in 1988 on the Libertarian ticket –after leaving the Republican party for the time that he did it. And many gawk when they see the Republican label. He must be in support of the current Iraqi expedition, and an expansion into Iran. He must also be for all kinds of controls and laws to protect the American people, like listening into your phone conversations and suspending laws that were created to protect freedoms that could be used to hurt you. He must be married to the bible and committed to ruling the land by it’s word as he interprets it, regardless of what religion you hold true to yourself is.

No, no and no. Ron Paul’s support does not come from todays twisted and perverted platform once known as the Republican party. It comes from the twenty year old college student, who saw their parents get their education at a fraction of the cost of theirs, and now feel uncertain for the chance to labor toward the American Dream they’ve been working so hard for, and so many fought for. They’re the people that are irked at the fact that they’re either earning the same or less than they were five years ago, while every living purchase has skyrocketed, with no end in foresight. They’re those close to retirement who can easily envision little or no social security coming back to them, after they’ve had it taken from them all their lives. It’s the people in their golden years that struggle to survive on their own living and medical expenses who can’t figure out why those whom we fund for governance feel it’s more important to spend it on waging battles halfway across the world, based on false pretense, rather than battling for the welfare of the greatest generation that ever existed. The generation that delivered the most impressive fruits of the industrial revolution and created the comforts of life we enjoy so much today. And they see the product of their labor transformed into the instrument of conquest.

They’re people that believe America is what it was founded to be. A place where the people of each state can independently govern itself, bound by a set of common principals guided by liberty. Those that believe in equal rights for all of humanity and the rule of law, as outlined in the United States Constitution. We are the ones that not only want to see, but are determined to being a part of what makes America the best it can be.

And we’re against those who attempt to cloud the American way. Against the abuse of power that often delivers a rewritten message of what the American ideology is about. We are against any regression into an uncivilized structure of civilization that preys on the poor and promotes unnecessary militarist conflict.

any are now crafting articles in an attempt to not only label Ron Paul “crazy” or as a a “lunatic,” but also pass these sentiments onto his supporters. Fine. In my limited experience following politics, I don’t believe I’ve ever witnessed such a strategy where not only the candidate, but the American public in support are also attacked. However, it certainly demonstrates this campaign isn’t just about Ron Paul. It’s about we the people. It’s about the message of liberty, responsible government and those in support of it. It’s an attack on the very ideas and principals that created the worlds first highly successful free society. But we, the Ron Paulers, are not swayed by such romper room tactics.

Those articulating their opinions in such a manner hope it will sway the Ron Paul supporter, or one considering to garner its message. It’s a natural defensive position to take when one threatens another –attempt to discredit them in the hopes you won’t listen to them and accept their judgment. And it’s your choice if you do or not. I know it can be difficult to hear something very sensible from someone like Ron Paul and become confused when someone that’s supposed to be an authority on the matter in question says it can’t work, when it did in a day we consider more primitive. And I agree it’s easier to adopt someone else’s judgment on a particular position or issue rather than examine it independently. But Ron Paulers are those that have decided to take the more challenging route and judge for themselves.

All in all, I can promise you this. We Ron Paulers are not about to fade into the night. We’re growing in numbers day by day. We’re committed to the modern ideas of freedom and liberty as scribed in our 200 plus year old constitution, and we plan on preserving it. We believe in a sound economic system where the money you earn holds its value while you alone hold onto it. We have no problem receiving the petty childish antics that attempt to shroud the message of liberty as crazy, or zany. Because we foster one of the most important traits required to maintain a free and prosperous country –tolerance. You may want to consider being a part of it… because we’re not going away.

Sphere: Related Content

Why I Quit The Democratic Party For Ron Paul

Published by
peter
at October 23, 2007 in Republicans, Democrats, War, Primaries and Political Issues. 4 Comments

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

Meeting the Man Himself!

Published by
CorieW
at October 8, 2007 in Primaries, Political Issues and Ron Paul Awareness. 4 Comments

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

Why “Ron Paul Can’t Win” Won’t Last

Published by
peter
at September 11, 2007 in Gen Y, Iraq War, Primaries, Foreign Policy and Political Issues. 13 Comments

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

A Soldier’s Neo-Con Free Perspective on Iraq

Published by
CorieW
at September 9, 2007 in Iraq War, Primaries, Foreign Policy, Political Issues and Ron Paul Awareness. 6 Comments

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

Published by
CorieW
at September 7, 2007 in Primaries, Political Issues and Ron Paul Awareness. 3 Comments

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

Fox News Exposes Itself … Again

Published by
SueM
at September 6, 2007 in Primaries, Political Issues and Ron Paul Awareness. 1 Comment

Exhibit A:

Alan Colmes is announcing results of the Text Message “U-Vote” for the first time and Ron Paul is first with 35%.

Sean Hannity says:

Oh, here we go again … ah, here we go again, it’s driving me crazy

Later in the broadcast:

Alan Colmes:

And before we get to our next guest, let’s take a look at the results so far for tonight’s ‘U-Vote.’ In first place with 33% … Ron Paul … the Paulites I guess busy dialing and re-dialing on the phone.

Sean Hannity (interrupting):

Wait wait wait wait … you know what, they’re re-dialing by the second …

Exhibit B:

Political pollster Frank Luntz is analyzing the graph of viewer response during the “Paul - Huckabee” exchange on Iraq. As it turns out, the exchange was cut short.

Viewer response increases with these last words of Mike Huckabee’s:

Even if we lose elections we should not lose our honor and this is more important than the Republican Party.

to which Pollster Luntz gives his final comment:

Not losing our honor … clearly principle won out in this exchange.

(end of segment)

All well and good had the complete exchange actually been reported, with these, Ron Paul’s final words:

We’ve lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan, in Iraq plus thecivilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? What do we have to pay to save face? That’s all we’re doing is saving face. It’s time we came home.

We’ll never know what viewer response to the true ending of this exchange showed on the graph. I can say that the applause to the two statements seemed to be quite even. Given this I think it is safe to imagine Pollster Luntz’ actual final words, the ones not broadcast by Fox News:

It’s time we came home … clearly principle won out in this exchange.

Further Reading:

Hannity Lies To Discredit Ron Paul After Debate

Sphere: Related Content

A Perversion of Patriotism

Published by
CorieW
at September 1, 2007 in Foreign Policy, Political Issues and Ron Paul Awareness. 6 Comments

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

Mojica: Money Will Be The Death Of Us

Published by
peter
at August 30, 2007 in Monetary Policy, Political Issues and Ron Paul Awareness. 2 Comments

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

Understanding Ron Paul’s Stance on Abortion

Published by
CorieW
at August 17, 2007 in Federal Government, Abortion, Political Issues and Ron Paul Awareness. 14 Comments

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