Archive for the 'Ron Paul Awareness' Category

What’s Wrong with Our Money?

Published by
SueM
at December 4, 2007 in Monetary Policy and Ron Paul Awareness. 1 Comment

What’s wrong with our money? Well, for one thing it makes us exchange something of value — e.g. a house to live in, a book to read, gasoline to get you somewhere — for something that has no intrinsic value, in our case, paper.

What paper money does to a society over time is well documented. The 1912 classic FIAT MONEY INFLATION IN FRANCE How It Came, What It Brought, and How It Ended by Andrew Dickson White, LL.D., Ph.D., D.C.L., tells the story well. Here is an excerpt from his Introduction as published in Project Gutenberg’s EBook:

In 1876, during the “greenback craze,” General Garfield and Mr. S. B. Crittenden, both members of the House of Representatives at that time, asked me to read a paper on the same general subject before an audience of Senators and Representatives of both parties in Washington. This I did, and also gave it later before an assemblage of men of business at the Union League Club in New York.

Various editions of the paper were afterward published, among them, two or three for campaign purposes, in the hope that they might be of use in showing to what folly, cruelty, wrong and rain the passion for “fiat money” may lead.

It can be hard to be aware of what paper money is doing to your world when you are focused on just doing your best to get by, even though just getting by is getting harder every year. Life seems normal, so you don’t complain.

Then someone comes along and says “hey, things could be better.” One such person is Ron Paul. From The Case for Gold which he co-authored with Lewis Lehrmann:

Having a unit of account that has no definition or one that changes continually produces a situation equivalent to a carpenter using a yardstick that on an hourly basis changes the number of inches it contains. It is easy to see how foolish it would be to have any other unit of measurement changing in definition on a constant basis, yet many believe that a whole nation’s economy can operate with a monetary system in which the “dollar” has no definition and its measurement and value depend on politicians and bureaucrats. (page 158)

For an excellent review of the gold standard as a political issue in American history please read Howard Katz’ Report from New Hampshire of November 30, 2007, in which he points out that whenever this issue is fought out in the open the gold standard wins. By bringing it out in the open Ron Paul has started the ball rolling back to sound money.

The damage caused by paper money escalates in exponential fashion. It is only a matter of time before the house of cards collapses. However, just as paper money has damned mankind throughout history, so has gold always redeemed these most dire of situations. And so, quoting from the Constitution of my Commonwealth, Massachusetts, I look forward to a future when the “principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people” will be simply a matter of course.

Sphere: Related Content

On the Eve of this 5th of November

Published by
SueM
at November 4, 2007 in Ron Paul Awareness. 2 Comments

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot…

And so begins the famous poem about Guy Fawkes and his failure to blow up Parliament. Guy Fawkes is considered by some to have been an anarchist, and concern has been raised over associating the 5th of November with a dynamite (no pun intended) fund raising effort some Ron Paul supporters have undertaken called “this November 5th,” where one is directed to donate to the official Ron Paul Campaign tomorrow.

Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot are prominently featured in “V for Vendetta” and anyone familiar with this story knows that one of its main themes is that of the corruption of power. In the movie version the forces of V don’t seem to have a follow up plan (i.e. a new form of government), but we Ron Paul supporters in fact do (well, it was new some 200 years ago). As a Congressman, Ron Paul has been upholding the Constitution for twenty years, so you cannot call him an anarchist. In fact, one could argue that any officer of any of our governments, federal or state, who does not follow the Constitution that created his or her office is an anarchist of sorts.

Someone recently suggested the 11th of November - Veteran’s Day - as another good fund raising day. And so the beginnings of another poem come to mind…

Remember remember the Eleventh of November,
The Constitutional Government Plot,
I know of no reason
This Country We Believe In
Should ever be forgot…

Sphere: Related Content

One Reason Ron Paul is Perfect

Published by
SueM
at October 27, 2007 in Ron Paul Awareness. 1 Comment

I’m sitting here working, listening to the Diane Rehm Show, and someone has just made the point that President Bush’s newest war funding request will be passed by the majority Democrat Congress because Congress is tired and waiting for this Presidency to end and I got to thinking about the next President; I thought of Ron Paul and how perfect he will be.

Because Ron Paul will say “no” to both sides. He will say “no” to the Republicans who would rule the world and he will say “no” to the Democrats who would rule our lives.

Perfect! A lot of money staying with the People who will save it up to fund their future enterprises and those enterprises will make our economy very happy and over time those of us who have come to depend on government largesse will land on our feet and charity which has never disappeared from the American scene will become even more abundant (now that the government isn’t taking so much of our lives) and we will be secure in our borders and being secure we will trade goods and exchange knowledge and good will with other nations and I think I have to change my title now because I’ve thought of more than one reason Ron Paul is perfect and I bet you can think of even more.

Sphere: Related Content

Silent No More: How Ron Paul’s Adherence to the Constitution Will Return Government to the People

Published by
SueM
at October 16, 2007 in Federal Government, Abortion and Ron Paul Awareness. 5 Comments

I recently had a conversation with a good friend on the subject of agendas. Call it the “Moral Majority” or the “Christian Right,” whatever you call it, there is a political force in our nation that hesitates to support Ron Paul because there are several moral questions it would like to see settled at the federal level and Ron Paul won’t go there.

We were discussing the so-called “gay” marriage issue and I said “but what if they lose?” Silence. “Oh, you’re right,” my friend finally responded …. this is making sense now.“ That’s the point the Christian Right seems to be missing. It wants desperately to take the issues of abortion and gay marriage to the federal level for a constitutional amendment, where in fact it might lose.

If there is deciding to be done, why not at the state level? Instead of the proverbial eggs all in one basket, you put them in fifty, and while some of them may go contrary to Faith and Tradition, not all of them will, whereas at the federal level it becomes an all-or-nothing proposition with a resulting lock-step sameness across the land. Plus, with the fifty baskets idea you can simply move to a state that agrees with you if and when it comes to that.

And what’s with these marriage licenses anyway? Oh … they’re to show that one is married. Okay. I go to a church and get married. I have a record of this. Now, when someone asks me if I’m married, I show them the certificate.

Well, suppose I am gay and it is after the fifty battles have been fought and I live in one of the states that have come to recognize my desire to live as man and man or wife and wife (sorry, I don’t really know how to put that). In this case I simply go to the government to get the record I need because it is through the institution of government that this arrangement has been instituted. In other words, isn’t the problem that we have taken marriage out of the hands of one institution (the Church) and put it into the hands of another (the Government)? Why not simply put it back where it was in the beginning and let the people of each state decide on the “gay marriage” issue?

Ditto for abortion. Right now this has law-of-the-land status on the majority opinion of nine. The Christian Right would have it decided on the majority opinion of fifty. Ron Paul would simply uphold the Tenth Amendment which would have it uniquely decided by majorities in each and every state, either by Legislative Body or Referendum.

It seems that our Republic is quite democratic after all. You just have to do what the Constitution says, which is what Ron Paul has been saying for how many years?

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

Congress, Just War and a Young Man’s Choice

Published by
SueM
at September 23, 2007 in Federal Government, Non-Interventionism, Iraq War, Foreign Policy and Ron Paul Awareness. 2 Comments

I have a friend whose son is grappling with the issue of our involvement in Iraq. In his late teens, he knows kids who have either signed up or are thinking about it and right now he supports the war. My friend recently wondered out loud what to say to her son in hopes of broadening his view. With the somewhat obsessive and very fruitful habit I’ve developed over the last several months, I volunteered to look into it. Here’s what I found:

First, a quote from from a speech given by the Hon. Ron Paul of Texas before the U.S. House of Representatives, September 7, 2006 entitled “Big Government Solutions Don’t Work/ The Law of Opposites”

With no consistent moral defense of true liberty, the continued erosion of personal and property rights is inevitable. This careless disregard for liberty, our traditions, and the Constitution have brought us disaster, with a foreign policy of military interventionism supported by the leadership of both parties. Hopefully, some day this will be radically changed.

Unfortunately it seems to be no longer common knowledge that “a foreign policy of military interventionism” is not allowed under the US Constitution. Of the young man or woman volunteering to serve in the US Armed Forces today, I would ask:

Going to war is serious business. Are you willing to do so for a war that has not been authorized by the People through their Representatives in Congress, whose members have taken a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution?

Ron Paul often frames the argument in terms of the just war theory. In his article Onward Christian Soldiers? Christian Perspectives on War, Timothy J. Demy, Th.D. Commander, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy lists seven principles or criteria for just war, five for the nation “on the way to war” (jus ad bellum):

Just cause
Just intention
Last resort
Formal declaration
Limited objectives

and two for the military forces “in the midst of war” (jus in bello):

Proportionate means
Noncombatant immunity

Commander Demy then continues:

The just war theory has three important functions. First, it seeks to limit the devastation and outbreak of war. Second, the just war theory offers a common moral framework and language with which to discuss issues of war in the public arena. As Christians and as citizens it gives us a starting point for discussion and cultural engagement. Third, just war theory gives moral guidance to individuals in developing their conscience, responsibilities, and response. When the war drums sound, they are often loud and there is frequently confusion, competition, and chaos rather than clear thinking about the moral and biblical consequences of what is occurring. Just war theory is a tool for responsible Christian living and citizenship

It is reasonable to suppose that when when our founders decided Congress shall have the Power to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States, and with this the Power to declare War (Art I Sec 8), they had in mind the just war tradition developed over hundreds of years under the influence of not only Christianity but Roman law and Greek philosophy as well.

In these times we have plenty of destructive means at hand with which to wage war. Now more than ever we need the moral compass that limits their use, made plain by the just war tradition handed down through the ages for the good of all mankind.

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

Have We Lost Our Minds?

Published by
peter
at September 6, 2007 in Primaries, Foreign Policy and Ron Paul Awareness. 4 Comments

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

Close
E-mail It