click here
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Ron Paul on Meet the Press
Hi, everyone needs to write in to Meet the Press to urge them not to backtrack on their promise to give each presidential candidate 1 hour of airtime. See video for details.
click here
click here
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
AN OPEN LETTER TO RON PAUL
An open letter urging Ron Paul to run for the Libertarian party, in order to smash the two party system that has enslaved America.
read more
read more
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Why don't the big corporations fund Ron Paul?
This is a question that begs an answer. Ron Paul is for a non-interventionist foreign policy, deregulation, reduction in taxes, and a reduction in spending, all things that are conducive to economic growth and a market economy, so why don't more corporations fund his campaign?
Here is an excellent description of Ron Paul's idealogical "pedigree" from free market news:
I think there is this pervading notion that the interests of corporations and the people are fundamentally opposed, but I think this is absolutely false. I believe that corporations and the efficiencies they permit have permitted mankind to advance greatly in the last century, and I believe, that the majority of corporations, as with the majority of people, stand to gain from a world of freedom and peace. It is the corporations, and people, who are immersed in special interest pork barrel politics, that stand to gain from big government and government regulation. In other words, it is not a question of corporate interests versus people's interests, but rather, special interests versus the common interest.
The people have spoken: they want a Ron Paul presidency that serves the common interest and a return to prosperity. So where are the corporations?
Here is an excellent description of Ron Paul's idealogical "pedigree" from free market news:
Ron Paul is a deeply read man, probably the most educated candidate to run for high office since, well, how about Thomas Jefferson? That's a strong statement, but likely a true one. Certainly, one could make a case that he is the most learned and deeply read candidate of the 20th century.
What is his pedigree? He was a colleague and close friend of Murray Rothbard, the eminent free-market economist who proved one of Ludwig von Mises most outstanding and febrile pupils. Together, Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard (along with Lew Rockwell) helped define Austrian economics and academic libertarianism in the 20th century.
Rothbard is the author of the sweeping socio-economic masterpiece, "Man and State." Ludwig von Mises is author of numerous deeply learned, works on the free-market. His masterpiece is perhaps "Human Action," in which he sums up a century of "Austrian" free markets economics.
Granted, some very large corporations make alot of money from special interest politics, and have a vested interest in the continuation of such policies, but surely many multi-national corporations could stand to gain from a Ron Paul presidency and an explosion in America's economic growth, no? Where are they? Why aren't they funding him? This is perhaps the most free-market, low tax, small government politician that has ever run for office, and THE PEOPLE SUPPORT HIM. Why aren't the big corporations jumping on this opportunity?I think there is this pervading notion that the interests of corporations and the people are fundamentally opposed, but I think this is absolutely false. I believe that corporations and the efficiencies they permit have permitted mankind to advance greatly in the last century, and I believe, that the majority of corporations, as with the majority of people, stand to gain from a world of freedom and peace. It is the corporations, and people, who are immersed in special interest pork barrel politics, that stand to gain from big government and government regulation. In other words, it is not a question of corporate interests versus people's interests, but rather, special interests versus the common interest.
The people have spoken: they want a Ron Paul presidency that serves the common interest and a return to prosperity. So where are the corporations?
FAO: Kucinich and Gravel supporters, SUPPORT RON PAUL
It is time that Kucinich and Gravel supporters realize that all forces need to be united behind Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the answer. Kucinich and Gravel believe in a continuance of big government. Ron Paul understand that politicians will ultimately misuse public funds for special interests. Big government is the swamp that breeds corruption, and we should drain it. Ron Paul is the best hope for a return of a true nation.
The People Support Ron Paul
Ron Paul needs all the supporters that can be mustered. One of the non-establishment candidates needs the critical mass to reach the majority, and Ron Paul has the best chance of getting it. Everyone, now is the time, join the revolution!
The People Support Ron Paul
Ron Paul needs all the supporters that can be mustered. One of the non-establishment candidates needs the critical mass to reach the majority, and Ron Paul has the best chance of getting it. Everyone, now is the time, join the revolution!
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Confessions of a Junkie
Rachel's a hopeless addict, and wants to admit to her problem and get help. Maybe you are too? For a support group near you go to http://ronpaul.meetup.com/
read more
read more
Great Ron Paul Revolution Video
God Bless Ron Paul, an honest a principled politician. Please support his nomination for President. He has put hope in my heart."We must become the change we wish to see" - Ghandi.Kudos to the guys fromwww.ronpaulrevolution.com&Keith Olbermann
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
My Criticisms of Ron Paul
I write this here today not because I dislike Ron Paul, but rather, because I very much want him to be president and believe this constructive criticism can help him improve on certain aspects of his proposed policies that a) don't resonate with the nation and b) are not to America's advantage.
First let me explain why I support Dr. Paul. His vision of a minimalist government that does not tax and regulate the population more than is absolutely necessary resonates with my core beliefs. Any government that goes beyond the absolute necessities into the realm of welfare, regulations to "protect" consumers (e.g. narcotics prohibition), etc is a form of tyranny.
It is irrelevant whether the policies were voted in by the majority of the population. There should be, and indeed there are in the constitution, certain freedoms and rights that all people are entitled to that cannot be over-ridden by any government, democratically elected or otherwise. Constitutionally protected rights is an understanding that justice and fairness should preside and is deserved by all. The sole purpose of government is to provide that justice and fairness.
The reason why governments go beyond these absolute necessities is because it is easy to get elected by promising to "do things for people". That the government is not supposed to "do things for people" (with other people's tax dollars), but rather, supposed to protect people's rights and security in order to allow them to do things for themselves, is often forgotten by voters who are looking for something to believe in and someone or something to make their problems go away.
Ron Paul reminds us of the fundamental injustice of imposing the majority's wishes upon a minority via force (i.e. government regulations and taxes) and shows us how far a nation can decline economically and socially as a result of deviating from the just role of government in people's lives.
Now on to my criticisms. I have serious reservations about the foreign policies Dr. Paul espouses. I do believe in non-interventionism in principle, but I do not believe that a nation's foreign policies should be changed drastically in a very short period of time, and this is the impression I get of what Dr. Paul would have the US do if he became president.
If the United States withdraws from South Korea and gives China a carte blanche to invade Taiwan, as Dr. Paul has suggested it do, that will cause a serious disruption in the world and decline of US's economic strength. Even if the policy to get involved in East Asia was wrong to begin with, the US has made commitments to that region and has to live with the consequences of its commitments.
Trillions of US investment dollars have flowed into Taiwan and South Korea as a result of the understanding that the US would protect by force any armed invasion of those countries by socialist nations. To change course and withdraw that guarantee of support is a betrayal of the highest magnitude and I believe cannot be justified in any way. Besides Taiwan and South Korea, China itself could nationalize trillions of dollars worth of American assets if it perceives that the US will no longer militarily respond to such a move.
I'm not suggesting that if Ron Paul becomes president, then the next day China will nationalize all industries. What I do believe though is that if a policy of non-interventionism takes effect, China will probably take over Taiwan, and eventually, North Korea will take over South Korea.
With a strengthened military and economic position, I very much believe China would then feel confident in nationalizing foreign owned assets in its country. The strategic landscape will be significantly altered to China's advantage and Americans will lose hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars in assets they have invested in that country. This scenario is absolutely intolerable and must be avoided at all costs.
What I would suggest instead of jumping out of all of the commitments the United States has made to other nations and to its own investors, is for it to slowly decrease its foreign presence, starting with the middle east, and wait until its economy has strengthened to a point where its corporations are not so reliant on investments in East Asia before it starts to withdraw from that region.
Decades of special interests politics and government over-regulation have resulted in American corporations investing their money abroad, mostly in China and surrounding countries. With a Ron Paul presidency, that trend can be reversed, and American companies can feel comfortable in doing business in the U.S. In time, the US will no longer be vulnerable to Chinese expansion in East Asia, and it can move to a more non-interventionist position.
I hope Ron Paul and/or his supporters can read this and either reconsider their policies or explain to me why I am misreading potential world events.
First let me explain why I support Dr. Paul. His vision of a minimalist government that does not tax and regulate the population more than is absolutely necessary resonates with my core beliefs. Any government that goes beyond the absolute necessities into the realm of welfare, regulations to "protect" consumers (e.g. narcotics prohibition), etc is a form of tyranny.
It is irrelevant whether the policies were voted in by the majority of the population. There should be, and indeed there are in the constitution, certain freedoms and rights that all people are entitled to that cannot be over-ridden by any government, democratically elected or otherwise. Constitutionally protected rights is an understanding that justice and fairness should preside and is deserved by all. The sole purpose of government is to provide that justice and fairness.
The reason why governments go beyond these absolute necessities is because it is easy to get elected by promising to "do things for people". That the government is not supposed to "do things for people" (with other people's tax dollars), but rather, supposed to protect people's rights and security in order to allow them to do things for themselves, is often forgotten by voters who are looking for something to believe in and someone or something to make their problems go away.
Ron Paul reminds us of the fundamental injustice of imposing the majority's wishes upon a minority via force (i.e. government regulations and taxes) and shows us how far a nation can decline economically and socially as a result of deviating from the just role of government in people's lives.
Now on to my criticisms. I have serious reservations about the foreign policies Dr. Paul espouses. I do believe in non-interventionism in principle, but I do not believe that a nation's foreign policies should be changed drastically in a very short period of time, and this is the impression I get of what Dr. Paul would have the US do if he became president.
If the United States withdraws from South Korea and gives China a carte blanche to invade Taiwan, as Dr. Paul has suggested it do, that will cause a serious disruption in the world and decline of US's economic strength. Even if the policy to get involved in East Asia was wrong to begin with, the US has made commitments to that region and has to live with the consequences of its commitments.
Trillions of US investment dollars have flowed into Taiwan and South Korea as a result of the understanding that the US would protect by force any armed invasion of those countries by socialist nations. To change course and withdraw that guarantee of support is a betrayal of the highest magnitude and I believe cannot be justified in any way. Besides Taiwan and South Korea, China itself could nationalize trillions of dollars worth of American assets if it perceives that the US will no longer militarily respond to such a move.
I'm not suggesting that if Ron Paul becomes president, then the next day China will nationalize all industries. What I do believe though is that if a policy of non-interventionism takes effect, China will probably take over Taiwan, and eventually, North Korea will take over South Korea.
With a strengthened military and economic position, I very much believe China would then feel confident in nationalizing foreign owned assets in its country. The strategic landscape will be significantly altered to China's advantage and Americans will lose hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars in assets they have invested in that country. This scenario is absolutely intolerable and must be avoided at all costs.
What I would suggest instead of jumping out of all of the commitments the United States has made to other nations and to its own investors, is for it to slowly decrease its foreign presence, starting with the middle east, and wait until its economy has strengthened to a point where its corporations are not so reliant on investments in East Asia before it starts to withdraw from that region.
Decades of special interests politics and government over-regulation have resulted in American corporations investing their money abroad, mostly in China and surrounding countries. With a Ron Paul presidency, that trend can be reversed, and American companies can feel comfortable in doing business in the U.S. In time, the US will no longer be vulnerable to Chinese expansion in East Asia, and it can move to a more non-interventionist position.
I hope Ron Paul and/or his supporters can read this and either reconsider their policies or explain to me why I am misreading potential world events.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)