R
rozwaldo
It isn't difficult to see why there is such little interest in the GOP race this year. As a newcomer to the world of political activism, I can understand why less than 2% of Nevada's population voted in their caucus this year, why viewership for reality TV shows and sports programs outstrip the GOP debates easily, and why I can't remember this third reason after watching Rick Perry. The answer is simple; the debates appear to be reruns of bad episodes of old cartoons. The characters and their dialogues are the same; we have a group of career politicians broadcasting the old message of "American exceptionalism," "American power," and "more job creation." It could be labeled simple rhetoric and it does seem rather scripted. Have we not heard the same things from George Bush (Sr. and Jr.), Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John McCain, and Obama? Broad generalities and empty talking points are the core of both both parties' classic election strategy. And it works. We buy into it every single time because it feels good to hear a Presidential contender speak with seemingly unshakeable conviction in the greatness and infallibility of our country. Who doesn't want to stand behind the statement "yes we can" and the candidate who proclaims it? When one looks upon the 2012 GOP field, one sees another wealthy career politician and hears again about how much he cares for the average working American and the development of a stronger middle class. We always elect the candidate who espouses this belief most convincingly. Yet here we are. Despite electing that smooth-talking career politician with the handsome smile, the bright eyes, and the big promises, we have an ever-weakening dollar and ever-shrinking middle class. Didn't life seem great in 1991 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Older Workers Benefit Protection Act? It seemed, finally, that there was complete equality among all U.S. citizens, employers could not take unfair advantage of their workers, and fair minimum wages would always keep the poverty rate in check. Today, we can see that minimum wage has not kept up with the inflation of the dollar; necessary goods haven't cost such a large portion of American paychecks since the Great Depression. The top 1% of earners have not controlled such a disproportionate amount of the wealth since the Great Depression. The middle class hasn't had such little spending power since the Great Depression. Why are we being squeezed more every year when we keep electing Presidents on the promise that they will stop this process? Could it be that these "very electable" men we keep putting in office actually have more loyalty to the corporations who fund their campaigns than the American people they are sworn to protect? Could it be that their passionate speeches aren't even worth the note cards they're printed on?
We have no way of knowing how far any President would go to protect our interests over the interests of his financial guarantors and his own personal ambitions (it is the safest choice when the people ARE his financial guarantors.) We must always keep in mind that career politicians who make it to Presidential contention have been successful because they find ways to make profit and gain advancement, the same as in any other career. It sounds like common sense, but it is easy to forget amidst the kissing of babies and American Dream speeches that when one is in the top 1% of earners, it is not profitable to support laws and enact provisions that favor the 99% of working Americans. And even if the candidate is himself not an elitist, the big companies and privateers who back him are. There is a lot of political apathy because 2012 looks like a new year playing the same old game with the good old boys; the status quo looks to remain untouched. But there is one shining ray of hope among the candidates to make this race worth talking about - a dissenter in their midst. One who isn't a career politician, who never lobbied for corporations, who never cut thousands of American jobs for a huge personal gain, and who never violated the code of ethics established for public servants in the House. The one who has pushed for greater public access to the actions of Congress and the Federal Reserve - the transparency we the people deserve. You may have heard about him in his few brief mentions on the major news networks like FOX and CNN - or the mere 89 seconds given him by CBS in their 1.5 hours debate segment - but the consistency, honesty, integrity, and logical gravity with which he has conducted himself during his time as a Texas Congressman has been quietly ignored. He refuses to change his message or pander to different voter groups. He is a devout Christian but doesn't make an issue out of it to distract from the economic problems we face. He is the only candidate with enough widespread appeal to get the signatures required to make it onto every state's ballot alongside Mitt Romney. He is the only candidate with an actual plan to cut government programs and military spending to reduce the debt and apply true fiscal conservatism in the White House. He is the only candidate who is pushing for less foreign military intervention and more international trade. He is a war veteran, a doctor, Congressman of over 20 years, and now a breath of fresh air in the GOP race - Ron Paul.
He has received more donations from active members of the U.S. military than every other GOP candidate and Obama combined. He's never voted to raise taxes or the debt ceiling; he has always fought to keep the debt from spiraling out of control (as it is beginning to do now) by fighting against overspending. He is the only candidate who will challenge the legality of the Patriot Act and NDAA and prevent similar unconstitutional acts from passing in the future. Ron Paul is the exciting part of this GOP race. He answers the questions he is asked rather than diverting attention away to another issue; he does not waste time debating unconstitutional non-issues like banning contraception, indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, or attempting to make a religion mandatory in a nation that was founded on the principle of religious freedom. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has pointed out that the gold standard is actually required under the Constitution precisely because it helps avoid runaway inflation (the U.S. dollar has lost over half of its value since 1985) and that the Federal Reserve is not supposed to be an independent agency precisely because overprinting is very dangerous to economic stability and very possible without external auditing. Ron Paul is appealing to both Republican and Democratic voters because his consistent message addresses the universal problems faced by all of us rather than the differences that separate us and maintain party lines. Paul personally identifies himself as more of a Libertarian and what he terms a "Constitutionalist" rather than a strict Republican, which helps to avoid alienating any voter bases. He believes many federal powers, laws, programs, and agencies should be abolished or turned over to state governments to avoid wasting taxpayer dollars on unnecessary lawsuits.
Have I been biased in my portrayal of Ron Paul? Of course I have; but I feel it is justified because Ron Paul is slandered by his opponents and the News corporations. My argument is not that Ron Paul is a perfect human being or that he will even follow through on every promise if he were elected to serve as CIC (no politician ever does), but that he is far more informed than the other candidates in regards to economic theory, U.S. history, U.S. law, and CIA reports. He also respects the intelligence of the American people enough to rely on logical appeals rather than emotional ones. He recognizes that Keynesian economic policy relies on a perpetual cycle of war to counter stagflation while the other GOP candidates unwittingly support the failed concept of "trickle-down" economics by advocating less taxation for the rich. His voting record as a Congressman actually matches his message today. He returns the unused portion of his annual budget for his public office back to the Treasury at the end of every year. He is a physician-turned-politician who practices what he preaches rather than a career politician who urges America to watch the right hand so they won't see what the left is doing.
I'm not saying we should place a vote based only on the content of a nominee's character (great harm often comes from those with the best intentions after all) but that is why this GOP race is special - we don't have to. Ron Paul is not only offering honesty and integrity but a hard plan to cut the debt and get some spending power back to the middle class. If you don't support Ron Paul, you have your reasons and he would like to protect your freedom to have them. I must recommend the final episode of Judge Napolitano's show on FOX or Ben Swann's Reality Check if you are at least interested in finding out more about Ron Paul. The main complaints I've heard about Paul are:
1. He is too radical. 2. He is too old. 3. He wants to legalize drugs (which would apparently plunge the nation into chaos). 4. He is an isolationist and would therefore doom the U.S. by halting trade.
Answers: 1. His plan to cut a large number of federal agencies does indeed sound radical, but the results would have a minimal effect on the safety of the American public. Environmental, food, and drug laws are already in place at the state level and lawsuits often arise because they contradict mandates from federal agencies; millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted while courts try to determine which takes precedence. 2. He IS too old if you look at his age on a piece of paper (76 going on 77), but if you've heard him speak at any of the debates, you know this number does not accurately reflect his mental awareness. He stutters and fumbles questions less than any of his opponents and it is obvious that his athletic training as a HS track state champion and his training in the medical field prompted him to make his health a priority from a relatively early age. My point is, his age does not inhibit his ability to make decisions and has not impaired his ability to compete on the campaign trail. 3. He doesn't want to make an executive decision to legalize drugs, or prostitution, or abortion, or anything; he wants these issues decided at the state level because a President's personal views should never limit freedom. Even if drugs were legalized, we would most likely see results similar to Portugal after they decriminalized all drugs in 2001. Portugal saw a decrease in teen drug use, drug-related disease, and, obviously, drug-related crimes. 4. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. This means he would like to reduce military presence in foreign nations to reduce hostilities, saving American money and lives at the cost of possibly losing some global influence and leverage for oil access. Paul supporters think this tradeoff is worth it and know that Paul actually wants to introduce international trade with countries who are currently sanctioned or alienated by unwanted U.S. military presence.
With the California primary only a month away, we have a choice that the news networks don't tell us about - that the news articles in the major news publications don't print. We can choose to vote for someone who doesn't offer to support us later if we support him now, but someone who has always supported us as a Congressman and is simply asking for the opportunity to continue doing so as our President. We can choose to vote for someone who gets his campaign donations from We the People rather than big corporations. We can choose to vote for someone without a multitude of ethics violations, a history of corruption, or a voting record so inconsistent it appears to be random. We can choose to vote for someone who trusts us enough to tell us the truth. We can choose to vote for Ron Paul.
We have no way of knowing how far any President would go to protect our interests over the interests of his financial guarantors and his own personal ambitions (it is the safest choice when the people ARE his financial guarantors.) We must always keep in mind that career politicians who make it to Presidential contention have been successful because they find ways to make profit and gain advancement, the same as in any other career. It sounds like common sense, but it is easy to forget amidst the kissing of babies and American Dream speeches that when one is in the top 1% of earners, it is not profitable to support laws and enact provisions that favor the 99% of working Americans. And even if the candidate is himself not an elitist, the big companies and privateers who back him are. There is a lot of political apathy because 2012 looks like a new year playing the same old game with the good old boys; the status quo looks to remain untouched. But there is one shining ray of hope among the candidates to make this race worth talking about - a dissenter in their midst. One who isn't a career politician, who never lobbied for corporations, who never cut thousands of American jobs for a huge personal gain, and who never violated the code of ethics established for public servants in the House. The one who has pushed for greater public access to the actions of Congress and the Federal Reserve - the transparency we the people deserve. You may have heard about him in his few brief mentions on the major news networks like FOX and CNN - or the mere 89 seconds given him by CBS in their 1.5 hours debate segment - but the consistency, honesty, integrity, and logical gravity with which he has conducted himself during his time as a Texas Congressman has been quietly ignored. He refuses to change his message or pander to different voter groups. He is a devout Christian but doesn't make an issue out of it to distract from the economic problems we face. He is the only candidate with enough widespread appeal to get the signatures required to make it onto every state's ballot alongside Mitt Romney. He is the only candidate with an actual plan to cut government programs and military spending to reduce the debt and apply true fiscal conservatism in the White House. He is the only candidate who is pushing for less foreign military intervention and more international trade. He is a war veteran, a doctor, Congressman of over 20 years, and now a breath of fresh air in the GOP race - Ron Paul.
He has received more donations from active members of the U.S. military than every other GOP candidate and Obama combined. He's never voted to raise taxes or the debt ceiling; he has always fought to keep the debt from spiraling out of control (as it is beginning to do now) by fighting against overspending. He is the only candidate who will challenge the legality of the Patriot Act and NDAA and prevent similar unconstitutional acts from passing in the future. Ron Paul is the exciting part of this GOP race. He answers the questions he is asked rather than diverting attention away to another issue; he does not waste time debating unconstitutional non-issues like banning contraception, indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, or attempting to make a religion mandatory in a nation that was founded on the principle of religious freedom. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has pointed out that the gold standard is actually required under the Constitution precisely because it helps avoid runaway inflation (the U.S. dollar has lost over half of its value since 1985) and that the Federal Reserve is not supposed to be an independent agency precisely because overprinting is very dangerous to economic stability and very possible without external auditing. Ron Paul is appealing to both Republican and Democratic voters because his consistent message addresses the universal problems faced by all of us rather than the differences that separate us and maintain party lines. Paul personally identifies himself as more of a Libertarian and what he terms a "Constitutionalist" rather than a strict Republican, which helps to avoid alienating any voter bases. He believes many federal powers, laws, programs, and agencies should be abolished or turned over to state governments to avoid wasting taxpayer dollars on unnecessary lawsuits.
Have I been biased in my portrayal of Ron Paul? Of course I have; but I feel it is justified because Ron Paul is slandered by his opponents and the News corporations. My argument is not that Ron Paul is a perfect human being or that he will even follow through on every promise if he were elected to serve as CIC (no politician ever does), but that he is far more informed than the other candidates in regards to economic theory, U.S. history, U.S. law, and CIA reports. He also respects the intelligence of the American people enough to rely on logical appeals rather than emotional ones. He recognizes that Keynesian economic policy relies on a perpetual cycle of war to counter stagflation while the other GOP candidates unwittingly support the failed concept of "trickle-down" economics by advocating less taxation for the rich. His voting record as a Congressman actually matches his message today. He returns the unused portion of his annual budget for his public office back to the Treasury at the end of every year. He is a physician-turned-politician who practices what he preaches rather than a career politician who urges America to watch the right hand so they won't see what the left is doing.
I'm not saying we should place a vote based only on the content of a nominee's character (great harm often comes from those with the best intentions after all) but that is why this GOP race is special - we don't have to. Ron Paul is not only offering honesty and integrity but a hard plan to cut the debt and get some spending power back to the middle class. If you don't support Ron Paul, you have your reasons and he would like to protect your freedom to have them. I must recommend the final episode of Judge Napolitano's show on FOX or Ben Swann's Reality Check if you are at least interested in finding out more about Ron Paul. The main complaints I've heard about Paul are:
1. He is too radical. 2. He is too old. 3. He wants to legalize drugs (which would apparently plunge the nation into chaos). 4. He is an isolationist and would therefore doom the U.S. by halting trade.
Answers: 1. His plan to cut a large number of federal agencies does indeed sound radical, but the results would have a minimal effect on the safety of the American public. Environmental, food, and drug laws are already in place at the state level and lawsuits often arise because they contradict mandates from federal agencies; millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted while courts try to determine which takes precedence. 2. He IS too old if you look at his age on a piece of paper (76 going on 77), but if you've heard him speak at any of the debates, you know this number does not accurately reflect his mental awareness. He stutters and fumbles questions less than any of his opponents and it is obvious that his athletic training as a HS track state champion and his training in the medical field prompted him to make his health a priority from a relatively early age. My point is, his age does not inhibit his ability to make decisions and has not impaired his ability to compete on the campaign trail. 3. He doesn't want to make an executive decision to legalize drugs, or prostitution, or abortion, or anything; he wants these issues decided at the state level because a President's personal views should never limit freedom. Even if drugs were legalized, we would most likely see results similar to Portugal after they decriminalized all drugs in 2001. Portugal saw a decrease in teen drug use, drug-related disease, and, obviously, drug-related crimes. 4. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. This means he would like to reduce military presence in foreign nations to reduce hostilities, saving American money and lives at the cost of possibly losing some global influence and leverage for oil access. Paul supporters think this tradeoff is worth it and know that Paul actually wants to introduce international trade with countries who are currently sanctioned or alienated by unwanted U.S. military presence.
With the California primary only a month away, we have a choice that the news networks don't tell us about - that the news articles in the major news publications don't print. We can choose to vote for someone who doesn't offer to support us later if we support him now, but someone who has always supported us as a Congressman and is simply asking for the opportunity to continue doing so as our President. We can choose to vote for someone who gets his campaign donations from We the People rather than big corporations. We can choose to vote for someone without a multitude of ethics violations, a history of corruption, or a voting record so inconsistent it appears to be random. We can choose to vote for someone who trusts us enough to tell us the truth. We can choose to vote for Ron Paul.