Ron Paul A True Statesman With Integrity

I'm concerned about the detention provisions in the defense authorization bill and other losses of civil liberties over the past few years. So I'm closely following the Republican Presidential Primary news and polls of who is winning. I think this election is a make or break for America's survival. I strongly support Ron Paul's ideas and platform.

This morning I logged onto Google News and looked at the news stories. I read a story on Politico about the Presidential debate held at Drake University last evening. The article did not even mention Ron Paul, the most consistent champion of civil liberties of any candidate. Google news highlights had articles about other candidates performance during the debate, but nothing about Ron Paul.

To find how Ron Paul did during the debates, I googled Ron Paul on Google news. Online polls showed Ron Paul with a runaway. ABC poll received just over 8,746 votes of which 6,500 plus were in Paul’s corner. Gingrich followed with 1,000, Romney 590, Bachmann 200, and Perry 156. Paul had 63% of National Review poll voters followed by Gingrich 18% and Romney at 12% based on about 2,900 total votes. He amassed 86% of the vote in the online poll, which represents the Christian community. Romney and Gingrich scored a virtual tie with 4.9% and 4.8% respectively. Yahoo asked 16 debate poll questions. 72.48% (26,700) voters indicated they would like to hear more from Dr. Paul during debates.

We are tired of war, In a recent CBS poll three-quarters of Americans support US withdrawal from Iraq. Two-thirds of Americans believe the Iraq War was not worth fighting. Half of Americans oppose US involvement in Libya. More than half of Americans want to end the war in Afghanistan. Seventy per cent of Americans do not support military intervention to change dictatorships into democracies. 41% of Americans say that Israel is an ally. 37% of Americans say that Israel is 'not an ally,' and 12% say Israel is 'unfriendly' or 'an enemy.' 55% of Americans say Iran can be contained via diplomacy. Only 15% of Americans support military intervention in Iran. Support for ending these conflicts will be a significant factor in the caucuses. Ron Paul is the only voice of the top ttier candidates for ending the war.

The main street media ignores online polls favoring standard polling method that question a few hundred "random" individuals to support their dismissal of Ron Paul. However the caucuses are an exercise in voter enthusiasm. Traditionally they have been an exercise for the "party faithful", but this election appears to be a watershed of emotional outpouring against politics as usual as evidenced by the Occupy Wall Street movement that has swept the world. Younger voters are being energized to participate in a process that has historically been ignored by the average voter. I sense the dialogue of political opinion, ideas, and honest concern for the future has never been greater. As voters become more sophisticated, and more self directed in their search for information, no longer are they looking for pundit's opinion. They are choosing for themselves with greater information than at any time in history. The media standards of former years are changing in ways few anticipated as we garner greater and more diverse information from blogs, email, ezines, reprints, online news sources and internet copies of video. The internet is having a greater influence on the political landscape than anything since Guttenberg’s printing press. I sense this reduces the effectiveness and accuracy of conventional polling techniques and conventional wisdom from mainstream media.

I sense that this election will turn into a test of personal values. People are remembering the forgotten dreams of youth and they are reaching for them, many for the first time through the political process. There is deep discontent with the status quo of government bailouts and war. I conceive that this will be a significant factor in the 2012 election. As we keep adding legislation like the Defense Authorization Bill and the Patriot Act in an obvious drift toward a police state, Ron Paul's support of the constitution, limited government and freedom are a breath of fresh air in a world of disingenuous compromises. The concerns expressed by many over the rule of law, disintegrating liberties, corporate bailouts, job creation, unjust war, and financial problems faced by our country and Europe are valid. However I have great confidence in this country's voter to see through the illusions and propaganda to recognize honest policies instead of the parasitical self destruction advocated by most politicians. I sense that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination for president and ultimate the presidency in 2012. I also perceive that current trends and the outpouring of heartfelt emotional support for one candidate represents a tipping point of individual voting power overwhelming political debate during this election. Ron Paul's integrity is readily apparent in his consistent voting record, his candid answers during debates and his clear reasoned vision of a bright future for America. I commend his honesty, his forthrightness and his vision.

His advocacy of the greater accountability and eventual elimination of the Federal Reserve is a highly significant, but often overlooked plank in his platform. Think about money for a second. Pull out a bill and look at it. It says on the bill FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE. It is a promise to pay. I also have issued several bank notes which represent my promise to pay. However, I unlike the Federal Reserve must provide something of value to others to earn Federal Reserve Notes to repay my notes. The Federal Reserve Bank however can issue more Federal Reserve Notes. This would be the equivalent to me issuing more personal notes to discharge my obligations. The Federal Reserve issues notes that are backed only by the paper they are printed on. Our only assurance of their value is the "goodwill" of these private bankers not to issue more notes and thus reduce their value. Their record in this has been horrendous. For this "service" they charge interest to member banks to borrow Federal Reserve Notes to cover their reserve requirements etc. The total interest and fees charged by the Federal Reserve equals the revenues the US Government collects in personal income taxes. This interest collected by the Federal Reserve does not go to the Federal Government for social programs, defense, public works etc. It goes to line the pockets of the wealthy individuals who own the Federal Reserve Bank.

If the Federal Reserve Bank services were provided by the US Treasury, these interest payments would be left in the Federal Government coffers instead of being diverted to enrich private investors. That's it in a nutshell. Private bankers are taking an amount equaling the Total Federal Revenue from Personal Income Taxes for providing slips of paper that have no more value than the strings of sea shells used in America before Columbus. Eliminating the Federal Reserve, a sound fiscal and monetary policy with no federal income taxes would lead to an explosion in economic activity the likes of which the world has not seen since the industrial revolution. Ron Paul advocacy of greater Fed accountability is gaining traction and being echoed by other candidates.

The excitement shown by Paul supporters indicates the ideas of the founding fathers are not dead. Civil liberty is still very popular and the foundation of the good life we all want for ourselves and future Americans.
jthitt jthitt
56-60, M
2 Responses Dec 12, 2011

I like Ron Paul on a lot of levels, and agree with him on a number of issues. I can buy many of his social positions. I think he is on the right path with regards to limited government. There are some major issues with which I disagree with the man. Its a dangerous world out there and all I think Mr. Paul would do if he was President is embolden the bad guys. He is an extreme isolationist. History is replete with examples of what happens when you turn a blind eye, when you pacify rather than standing up to evil. Weakness emboldens. Be it Nazi Germany or the Serb atrocities or genocide in Africa. We need to deal from a position of strength, not weakness.

Isolationism, is defined in the dictionary as "a policy or doctrine of nonparticipation in international economic and political activities." That is, specifically, the decision of one country to focus the entirety of its citizenry and industry within its own borders. Thus, no trade, no talking, no participation with the rest of the world in any form. Ron Paul is not an isolationist he is a non interventist.

Interventionism is defined as the "interposition or interference of one state in the affairs of another." That is, specifically, the act or fact of altering the affairs of one state by the willful action or coercion of another state.

It is a dangerous world out there. The real question to be answered is how we can reduce that danger logically, and what the real goals of inteventionists are and what outcome we can expect if we follow their proscribed solutions to the danger they perceive.

The use of force and violence to coerce other nations to align with our interests is a failed policy proscribed by the neocons in the Republican party to "make us safer in a dangerous world." But, does it work? What are the dangers we are escaping by violently altering another soveriegn nation's internal affairs, and which dangers are we unintentionally creating?

The supposed danger we are attempting to diminish is terrorist attack. But there are several dangers we are creating which I believe are greater than terrorist attack. First national sovereignty - the right to determine our own affairs as a nation is something we take for granted, but because we have a stronger military we impose our will on other countries and deny them the same consideration we take for granted. Put yourself in their shoes. China is outstripping us in economic growth and could potentially could use it's newfound economic strength to build its military. If it's strength exceeds that of the US, using the same ethics, China could legitimatly invade the US and impose it's prefered economic and political structures on us. How would you feel about Chinese troops on US soil, bombing targets determined to be a threat to their interests, setting up checkpoints, establishing military bases, and urinating on corpses of people they'd killed to further their interests? You might get upset and want to retaliate, huh? Would China be more or less likely to suffer terrorist activity by Americans after such action in your opinion?

Ok, and how many trillion dollars have we spent on these wars and nation building and being the world policeman? Our debt equals 100 percent of gross domestic product and the deficit each year is currently roughly 6 percent of gross domestic product . So in three short years our debt to gross domestic product will be at at 119% of gross domestic product, about the same as Spain which is considered bankrupt. Would an inability to borrow money reduce our strength in your opinion. Would it lead to higher interest rates and less money to fund the foriegn policy you espouse, would it lead us to a position of strength or weakness in your opinion. And, if it would lead to weakness would pissed off bad guys be more likely to retaliate against us, cause you gotta believe they are pissed off at us.

Individual liberty - does the patriot act, wiretapping, loss of constitutional protections to: privacy, legal representation, not being subject to randum searches, and no trial represent any danger to Americans? What about indefinate detention without charges being filed, no Miranda rights, no attorney allowed under the defense authorization bill is that a danger to Americans?

Does the continual saber rattling against Iran, trade sanctions, threats of attack on selected targets in Iran and the likelihood if it continues that Iran will close the Straights of Hormuz and shut off 1/5 of the worlds oil supply causing oil to double in price would that be a threat to Americans. How would 8 dollar a gallon gasoline help your budget exactly? And, would these likely responses to your espoused policies be likely to stregthen us militarily or weaken us in your opinion?

And, if the suggested conflagration with Iran morphed into World War III with other countries taking sides and being drawn into the conflict would that be a danger to Americans in your opinion?

Higher oil prices, wars and inflation that accompanys it, who does that help? Defense contractors, Federal Reserve Bank shareholders, and oil company shareholders. In short the power elite who own the media, and fund mainstream candidates who advocate these policies.

Do we need 900 military bases overseas? Could we perhaps close the ones in Japan and Germany without increasing the risk of terrorist attack? How would you feel about China having a military base in Mexico or Canada with a stated pupose of protecting themself from us? Would we feel threatened? Would they be safer. I wonder at these questions ... help me out here wouldja.

Oh and how do you feel about killing people? So fr we've killed over a million of these "evil foreigners" many of them civilians, does that make you proud to be an American? Are we safer yet? If not I guess the only option is to drop more bombs, invade more countries, kill a few more muslims. That should do it. And what the heck, let's attack Venezuela, and impose martial law in Amerika. Then things will be better won't they?

whilei like him i know nothing will change as congress still has control and make the rules they allneed to be replaced