I want you to know that sincerely his foreign policy was the most troublesome for me at first. But truly the more I learn about Ron Paul's foreign policy vs. the US foreign policy, the more it makes sense and the more flawed, dangerous, immoral, and super sad the US's foreign policy is. I think foreign policy may be my most important issue now because it is so deeply connected with everything else, the economy, our civil liberties, preserving the American way of life and truly having a strong America. It aligns with the council of prophets, scripture, Christianity, and the founders' philosophy - at least the admonition of George Washington in his farewell address. Here are some facts that may help if you have not heard them before:
-Ron Paul gets over 3 times as many donations from active duty military than all the other Republican candidates combined and almost double what Obama gets. This tells you that the troops support him, so maybe we should support the troops in the way they are asking for with their paychecks.
-This article came out about Iran - Check out the well-written story here: http://milwaukeestory.com/index.php/2011/12/19/pentagon-says... And the Department of Defense report from 2010 here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30277432/DoD-Unclassified-Report-o... Key quotes: "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy." "At present Iran's forces are sufficent to deter or defend against conventional threats from Iran's weaker neighbors such as post-war Iraq, the GCC, Azerbaijan or Afghanistan but lack the air power and logistical ability to power much beyond Iran's boarders or to confront regional powers such as Turkey or Israel." So our own govt admits what Ron Paul has been saying: Iran does not have the capabilities to attack, but they keep in mind the possibility of a nuclear weapon because they feel threatened. Our current foriegn policy encourages them to want a nuke. -We are currently giving 3x as much foreign aid to Israel's surrounding enemies as we are to Israel, so cutting all foreign aid would actually help Israel, who has 300 nukes of its own and is pretty capable of defending itself and makimg its own decisions. See following video: http://www.dailypaul.com/193159/ben-swann-reality-check-is-ron-paul-really-anti-israel
-Ron Paul voted in favor of authorizing the President to go after those responsible for the attacks on 9/11. He is not weak on defense, he realizes that there are times to fight. He wrote a bill to declare war against Iraq up or down (he voted against his own bill because he felt the Iraq war was unjustified) because he wanted it to be legal if we were gonna go in there. Guess what, the bill did not pass. He's in favor of going to war when Congress and the people declare it, but he is strongly opposed to illegal wars. He feels we need to get out of Afghanistan because the President went way beyond what he was Congressionally authorized to do. These unconstitutional wars will bankrupt us and destroy the dollar and that is probably the biggest threat to our way of life and future generations.
-al Qaeda and the Taliban are anti-American because we are occupying their lands. The only way to know this is to look at our history in the region and to ask the troops who are in the middle of it. Even if you don't believe this, the terrorists are still winning because of our Congress and administration destroying our Constitution to "protect" us from the terrorist threat i.e. the Patriot Act, the newly passed NDAA defense appropriations bill, the invasive policies of the TSA, the constant keeping us in fear and encouragement from Homeland Security "if you see something, say something" to keep us divided and suspicious of each other. We can't live like this anymore! Especially in these awful economic times when 50% of the population is at or below the poverty level! It's gonna start getting ugly if we don't put an end to the deceit and destruction of our Constitution and start focusing on our problems here at home. We need these brave soldiers at home defending their families, not perpetuating war and killing and violence unnecessarily.
Check out this video and realize why auditing and eventually getting rid of the Fed is so important. And why it's such a big deal that Mitt isn't going to do anything to stop this private central bank from devaluing our currency, burying us in debt, and effectively destroying our country.
Many of my friends and family tell me they support Mitt Romney for president and ask me what's so wrong with him. Here's my answer: I think he's probably a great guy. I'm sure he's nice and a good LDS man. I voted for him in 2008 thinking that he'd be good with the economy because he's a business man. I still think these things, and I think we'd be slightly better off if he were in charge now instead of the current president; however, I argue that he would make a good bandaid, but he would not really change things. This is why.
Economy: I think Mitt would improve the economy somewhat based on good business principles of not spending more than you take in, cutting excessive and unnecessary agencies, etc (Ron Paul believes these things as well and has never voted for an unbalanced budget or to increase spending). However, the government really is not and should not be a business. Once you "follow the money" and understand the root of our economic problems, you understand that we are in deep trouble and need major changes in economic policy, not just tweaking the tax code and other nitpicky measures. Most people don't know about the Federal Reserve. The "Fed" as it is called, controls the US economy based on a Keynesian economic policy (vs. an Austrian economic policy). Simply put, Keynesian theory is a hands-on central planning of the economy and Austrian theory is a hands-off, let the free markets and free enterprise regulate the economy. The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE central bank that prints money (determining inflation rates) and sets interest rates. It was set up under shady pretenses in 1913 through the Federal Reserve act and it has absolutely no checks and balances on it from any government agency. It is run by private bankers who manipulate the value of the currency by printing up a bunch of paper money (not backed by anything with real value) and lending it to the government or putting it into circulation. Increasing the amount of dollars in circulation decreases the value of each dollar. This is what causes inflation, or in other words, what causes commodity prices to increase (aka gas prices, food prices, the price of education, everything increases in price while our wages stay the same). The Fed controls the money, they are the root of the problem of the economy. A runaway, rubber-stamp (meaning they don't pay attention to the bills, they just give them the ok) Congress certainly hasn't helped us, but as long as the Fed is able to print more money, the Congress has no incentive to stop the spending, thus wildly extending the reach of the federal government. (Learn more about the Fed by reading Ron Paul's book, END the FED - I have a copy if anyone wants to borrow it, or also The Creature from Jekyll Island by J. Edward Griffin.)
So...if we don't start dealing with the Federal Reserve, nothing will really change over time.
Ron Paul's thoughts about the Fed: Audit it, so we can see what they are up to (One partial audit revealed that the Fed printed up 16 trillion dollars to bail out foreign central banks - that's about as much as our entire national debt. A lot of money.) and eventually phase it out completely and get back to letting the free market really take over the economy. He predicted the housing bubble and economic collapse. He understands the economy and can help turn things around.
Mitt Romney's thoughts about the Fed: He doesn't feel like it's necessary to focus on the Fed and that Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed is doing an ok job dealing with the economy according to this interview. He may have some good ideas about how to get the economy rolling, but until he understands that the Fed is the root of the problem, things won't change. Another major thing about Romney's economic policy, he has once supported the stimulus, then stated he didn't support stimulating the economy. This clip shows it, it's a little politicized, but has the quotes nonetheless. The stimulus is a very Keynesian way to try to prevent economic collapse, but is just a bandaid. It also greatly increases our national debt and devalues the currency if we're printing money to pump into the economy (aka quantitative easing or QE as it's referred to in the news). Mitt also supported TARP - the banker bailout of 2008. TARP took money from the taxpayers to prop up the banks that had made terrible, risky, and almost unethical business decisions that helped facilitate the collapse. They basically caused the bubble, then got refunded for what they lost doing it in the name of preventing economic disaster. The middle class took the heat for their dumb decisions and we're not better off economically. One possible reason Romney supported TARP: 2 of his top 3 campaign contributors this year were people who worked at banks that got much of this bailout money, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
Foreign Policy: This leads to foreign policy. As long as Congress is allowed to spend as much as they want because they have access to unlimited amounts of money that can be printed up by the Fed or taxed out of you or borrowed from China (at least as long as the dollar is still considered the reserve currency and other countries put up with our shenanigans), they have no incentive not to go to war and expand our influence around the world. Many Republicans talk about being fiscal conservatives yet take no thought to cut from one of the biggest budgets our govt has - "defense spending." We have been at war against "terror" for over 10 years now. When will it ever end? The military-industrial complex and the central banks are getting rich off of all of the money we are spending to fund these wars. What is the end goal of the war in Iraq? What is the end goal of the war in Afghanistan? Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are gone. Iraq has had their "democratic elections." Seriously, what is the end goal? Kill al Qaida and the Taliban? This is a powerful clip describing the nonsense of that notion. We supported the Taliban and Osama bin Laden back in the day when Russia was trying to do to them exactly what we are today. They are freedom fighters trying to defend their lands from our bombs! It is completely contradictory and insane.
So...our foreign policy needs to be scaled back and focus on defending our nation, liberties, families, and freedoms.
Ron Paul believes that we would be a stronger country if we didn't go bankrupt trying to expand our empire over the world, policing the world, and getting involved in the internal affairs of other countries. Think this is crazy? This is what Bush ran on in 2000. This is what George Washington advised us in his farewell address. Ron Paul believes in going to war only when Congress declares war. Interestingly, he authored a bill to declare war against Iraq up or down. He voted against it because he did not believe we were justified to go to war. So did the rest of Congress. The bill did not pass. Yet here we are, 8 years later, starting to pull out (but leaving contractors still in the area so not really). Ron Paul believes in defending our nation, he voted to authorize the president to go after those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. He did not vote for a full blown war against Afghanistan. Ron Paul believes in diplomacy and not starting the wars, but certainly defending our country in the case of a real threat (not just because of war propaganda and hype). Ron Paul believes in trading with other nations and that sanctions are an act of war. Oh, and Ron Paul received more contributions from the military than all other Republican candidates combined, and even more than Obama.
Mitt Romney believes in a strong America as well, but would go about it an entirely different way. He has stated that he would not cut a penny from military spending. According to mittromney.com, he wants to isolate and sanction Middle Eastern countries such as Iran and Syria in an attempt to weaken and eventually overthrow their dictators. As we saw though from Egypt and possibly in Libya, their dictators get replaced with al Qaida! Mitt would also keep and ramp up our military presence in the Pacific to ensure the trade routes stay open and East Asia remains "secure and prosperous." What if the Japanese or Chinese were stationed in the Gulf of Mexico to ensure our security? Why do we have to waste our tax money (or borrow money or print money and devalue our currency) to piss off volatile countries in the Middle East or protect countries that are perfectly capable of protecting themselves? This is also a famous pre-Tea Party clip showing that Romney doesn't want to bother with following the Constitution when it comes to deploying troops for war but would rather "let the lawyers" sort it out. Mitt Romney employs the same war-mongering, fear-mongering that has been going on in Washington for years. Notice that four years ago they were still talking about Iran and there's no evidence that says they are getting any closer to building a nuke. They did the same for Iraq before that and look at the mess we're in now. His end goal for the wars are pretty far-reaching. He talks a lot about modernizing Islam and making the Middle East more like America, improving their schools, establishing democracy, etc. I don't think that it's our business to make thier religion modern. Nor should we discriminate against Muslims and try to say they are not modern. Sure, there are some radicals. I know a few Muslims and they are very nice peaceful people. We are going to be in for a lot lot longer if we are trying to reform entire countries and religions. We shouldn't spend our money doing this, we shouldn't risk precious lives doing this; we should back off and let them live how they want to live. They've been around for several hundreds of years. We probably won't change them. If we quit bombing them, maybe they'll leave us alone too.
Civil Liberties: A famous quote by Rahm Emanuel, Obama's ex-Chief of Staff explains why we need to be extra careful of our Consitution and liberties in times of war: "You don't want a serious crisis to go to waste." Jon Stewart explains well in this video how the government has used fearmongering since 9/11 to chisel away at our civil liberties. Many argue that the terrorists have won because of the imprisonment we have given ourselves trying to prevent every single possible crime through the outrageous policies of the TSA, the Patriot Act, and the new Defense Appropriations bill. Ron Paul often quotes Benjamin Franklin, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." It's okay to try to prevent terrible things from happening, but the most terrible thing that could happen is the destruction of the basic protections of our rights guaranteed to us in the Comstitution. Jon Stewart was so right in the above video when he said in response to Lindsey Graham's argument that terrorists are bent on the destruction of our way of life, "so we're gonna destroy it before they can get their hands on it." The war on terror is not the only vehicle used to chisel away at the Bill of Rights; the war on drugs has also had it's share of liberty (and actual) homocide.
Ron Paul believes that the govt's role is to protect the life, liberty, and property of Americans. He believes that America has gone far from what a free society should be. He voted against the Patriot Act and believes that times of war and distress are the times that we should pay strictest attention to the Constitution, for the founders wanted to guarantee these rights for such times as these. He is against the TSA and would like to have the airlines provide their own security. He gets a lot of flack for being against the war on drugs. He argues that the government should not protect us from ourselves. He argues that alcohol prohibition was a bad idea and didn't work; we should appeal this as well because kids now can get drugs easier than they can alcohol. He puts up some more great arguments and talks about the history of why marijuana was made illegal in his book "The Revolution" if anyone would like to borrow that from me I have it as well. He states that he is against making marijuana use a federal crime because he does not want a federal police force. He would rather that states decide what they want to do regarding the regulation of drugs. He doesn't think throwing someone in jail for using drugs is the best way to get them off of drugs, especially when the jails are filled with drugs themselves. He doesn't feel that the federal govt should intervene if states have legalized the medical use of marijuana. He argues that the 4th amendment has been violated way too often because of suspected possession of marijuana. Read this and this for proof. Ron Paul does not advocate the use of drugs. He just believes that dangerous things happen when the govt oversteps its bounds and tries to protect Americans from themselves. Ron Paul believes many social issues should be left up to the states, but that we should be free to choose what we do to our own bodies as long as it doesn't infringe upon others' rights. Ron Paul is pro-life because he feels it is the govt's job to protect life.
Mitt Romney has nothing on civil liberties or protecting the Constitution on his website. I know the economy is a big issue this time around, but hopefully this post has helped you see that economic liberty is closely related to personal liberty and that civil liberties are worth mentioning. He is for a national ID card proving you're a citizen. This arguably goes against the part of the 4th amendment stating we have the right to be secure in our persons and papers. It also is pretty contradictory for a free society. If you went to Brimhall remember how we hated to have to wear our ID to school, imagine having to show ID everywhere! He is for a federal law defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I agree with this definition of marriage, but I think that this should be left to the states according to the 10th amendment. He has been pro-choice but is now pro-life. He seems to be fairly "socially conservative," which tends to disenfranchise democrats, making him less likely to beat Obama. I am personally socially conservative, but I don't believe in forcing my views on others when it is unconstitutional to do so. That also brings up a debate of free agency. Should we let people make bad choices or make it illegal for them to do so? Interesting debate I plan on writing about later. This post is way too long as it is.
Conclusion: Things might get slightly better if Mitt were to beat Obama, but our country really isn't going to see any real change unless we start adhering to the Constitution and fix the deep problems and assumptions about the role of govt.
Please don't get me wrong. I love my country. I feel greatly greatly blessed to live in America. I believe we're a lot better off than most anybody in the world. Because I love my country, I feel a need to be very critical and cautious of the government. I feel a deep sense of duty to protect this land and way of life we have been blessed with. If you don't think it's in danger and we're free as ever, check out this clip. It's funny, but also very concerning if you really think about it.
A great summary of how Ron Paul has been fighting for us for years. He is the most consistent and Constitutional candidate. He predicted the current economic crisis and is the only one that can help fix it. He speaks the truth! Great video.
Will we get another chance to have a man like this run for President? For once, you don't have to pick the lesser of two evils!
I never even thought to question the three "established truths" that the Afghanistan and Iraq "Wars" are based upon. I use quotations around "established truths" because the mainstream media and powers at be feed us these lines so often that it becomes unpatriotic and politically incorrect to question them. I use quotations around "wars" because Congress never declared war on these two countries as the Constitution requires.
1. Do the terrorists attack us and hate us because we are free and prosperous? 2. Is it okay or effective for America to promote democracy around the world through the barrel of a gun? 3. Would it be shameful, unsupportive of our troops, anti-Republican, and anti-American to leave the Middle East immediately?
Probably my favorite Ron Paul video: I showed this video to my dad some time ago, and he said he disagreed that the biggest moral issue in America is the acceptance of pre-emptive war. I probably agree with my dad on that one, but I think that Ron Paul was speaking of acts of government as a whole rather than acts of individual Americans. When I think of it this way, and really think about what war means, I think I agree with Dr. Paul. What is the most serious sin you can commit? Murder - taking someone's life. I strongly believe that war is called for in a few cases, and I get my belief from examples in the Book of Mormon, Alma in particular. He went to war to defend his family, his religion, his liberty. I think that is necessary. He did not start wars. When the enemy was not upon him, he fortified the land. There was not a happier time among his people (see Alma 50). Starting wars for no good reason leads to needless loss of life, including American soldiers and innocent civilians often referred to as "collateral damage." These are real people! Your family, friends, and neighbors being sent to war for no good reason! More to come on Ron Paul's foreign policy and how important it really is to end the wars.
There are many more good videos and essays explaining Ron Paul's foreign policy. Ron Paul voted to authorize President Bush to go after those who attacked us on 9/11. He wasn't against fighting and bringing to justice those who killed many of our fellow Americans on that awful day. However, he proposed using a small special ops force to hunt down those responsible. He was not for a full out war against Afghanistan (most of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia anyway) because he knew it would cost us many more lives, billions more dollars, and it would never end.
So whenever I try to talk to a person about Ron Paul or really anytime the conversation turns to anything about the next presidential election, the person I'm speaking with 99% of the time ends the conversation with something like, "ya, well anybody would be better than Obama."
This may be ultimately true, but that phrase drives me crazy. It is so frustrating to hear people say that. To me, it's almost just a concession. Well who cares, let's not discuss the issues, let's just cop out and just remind ourselves who the "bad guy" is that we're supposed to be against because he's a liberal democrat who is trying to bring socialism into our country. We're on Team Republican, so we have to take down Team Democrat at all costs. Carroll Quigley, a professor and historian who many say is unashamedly socialist (to say the least), pinned it right on the nose when he said: "The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War). … The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. … Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these thingsbut will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies." So basically, the two parties are just a circus to keep us occupied while the real important things are ignored and our liberty is undermined. Dig into records of Congress to see that this is true, but a few easy to see examples: Bush's No Child Left Behind = Federal overhaul of education, Obamacare = Federal overhaul of healthcare. Both unconstitutional, but since the guy on our team passed it, it's all good. Were there Republicans (so-called fiscal conservatives) all for the banker bailouts just because their buddy Bush passed them? Why were the Democrats (who voted for Obama to end the wars) outraged at Bush going into Iraq to overthrow the evil dictator but were all for Obama invading Libya to overthrow the evil dictator?
Obama may be accelerating our debt twice as fast as Bush did, but Bush still accelerated our debt! They both made the federal government much much bigger. Point is, we can do better than the status quo! Let's look through all the available candidates while we still have time before the primaries and see if we can do better. If you want, vote for the Republican no matter who he or she is in the generals. Don't just roll over now. We have an amazing opportunity to start getting this country back on track for real. It is going to be hard. It will be long. But until people start getting out of the mindset that we're Democrats and Republicans instead of Americans, it's never going to get better. Have you seen the hockey movie, Miracle? This newly-formed hockey team was training for the Olympics, to be the best in the world. The coach makes them do like a million laps after a game because he wants them to learn a lesson. The only thing that could make him stop blowing the whistle was Mike Eruzione. The coach asked him who he played for, and instead of stating the name of the college he played for, he said, "[I play for] the United States of America!" Same kind of thing. We need to come together and change the status quo. Stop the corruption. Quit killing the Constitution, our liberty, and our freedom.
Don't fall into the Fox News vs. CNN, Republican vs. Democrat trap. Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity make big bucks off of this silly illusion. They keep us occupied worrying about stupid stuff and never bring up things that matter. The important things can't be explained in a sound byte. Or a brief blog post (I'm trying my best). We actually have to read and study things that aren't always that entertaining.
Anyway, I know several of Obama's policies and actions are destroying America and the Constitution. I'm just saying he is not the only one who has done it (Democrat or Republican) and he is not the only one who would do it (intentionally or not)! We have a better choice. Look into Ron Paul. Listen to the debates and look into the voting records. Listen to the 2008 debates too, there was a lot less mention of the Constitution, no mention of the Fed, and a lot less mention of cutting spending. Except by Ron Paul. Look at his 1988 debates. He was fighting for the same things then! Let's not lose this monumental and historical chance to do join him in the fight for our liberty and our wonderful country.
Tell me why you like or dislike the candidates, just don't tell me anybody would be better than Obama.
