Why the military likes Ron Paul

Ron Paul is anti-war because he knows what war is like:



    Santorum           Obama                      Paul                Romney        Gingrich

Virtual buckeye to Aaron Alghawi via Blue Republican.

So Presidents don't need to know the Constitution now?

I heard this exchange Saturday during the Republican candidate debate in New Hampshire (Los Angeles Times report):

George Stephanopoulos: Governor Romney, so you think that states have the right to ban contraception or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?

Mitt Romney: George, this is an unusual topic that you're raising... states have a right to ban contraception, could it constitutionally be done? We could ask our Constitutionalist here, (motioning over to Ron Paul) uh...

George Stephanopoulos: I'm sure Paul could answer the question, but I'm asking you, do the states have that right or not?

Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Romney went back and forth for several minutes. Mr. Romney eventually made a grudging admission that yes, the states do have that right, but of course, no state is considering it.

So what kind of President do you want? One that is attractive and says what you want to hear (with the risk that he will make a contrary statement that someone else will want to hear), or a President who will obey his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?

Virtual buckeye to Sherry Mann.

It's about the OATH, stupid!

As we all know, journalists like to create controversy in the oddest places. One of the questions that arose in last Saturday's debate was "Is marital fidelity important in a President?" The other candidates took potshots at Newt Gingrich.Here are the highlights of last Saturday's ABC News/Yahoo! Republican debate, which includes his answer to this question. 

Ron Paul gave the correct answer, which is that obeying an oath is a sign of character. Dr. Paul said that while marital vows are important, the oath that really matters is to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Dr. Paul is the only candidate who has consistently worked to do just that over 30 years. That should speak volumes about his character, and about what he would do as President.

Amen, sister!

Karen Kwiatkowski, again. This time in her own words, from LewRockwell.com, about Christmas, Christianity, and fascism. The entire article is well worth reading.

Christmas is a Christian celebration, but it is truly something that should be celebrated each day, in peace, in forbearance, in humble joy and gratefulness for God’s love, His generosity and His guidance. I’d like to think that we Christians might someday be able to show that Gandhi was wrong about us – that we do indeed follow the Prince of Peace in our daily lives, in our relationships at home and at work, and through our participation in politics. It is impossible for a true Christian to cheer war, to celebrate death, disease, destruction and poverty, to wish ill on others. It is downright devilish for Christians to claim their faith while exalting human governments that seek war on the basis of lies, that sow fear and loathing in the name of empire or government survival, and governments that would steal the very future from their own children in the name of patriotism. All I want for Christmas is a glimpse of real Christianity, in our lives and in our politics... [Emphasis added]

God knows what we need even before we ask Him, so I’ve been taught. That being the case, maybe I should see to it that I love liberty more passionately. I’ll add a grain of pure courage to my morning coffee, and I will try to think more independently, and step away from the party lines. I’ll see if I can live my Christianity in a more honest way. All that would make for a lovely Christmas, and it would be more than enough.

But Santa, if there is room for one more gift, please give me the opportunity to vote Ron Paul for President in 2012. Merry Christmas, America!

One more good reason she should be Vice President (if not President) of the United States!

The wall of silence is cracking

Steve Sack, Minneapolis Star-Tribune

Forbes, a business magazine I have always liked for its independent attitude, has broken the mainstream media's wall of silence against Ron Paul. I saw evidence of that wall of silence this weekend while traveling -- USA Today refused to even mention Ron Paul in its coverage of the foreign policy debates Monday evening. Pollster John Zogby, in an op-ed piece published Nov. 9, thinks that the intensity of support behind Ron Paul makes him a force to be reckoned with:

 I don’t expect Paul to drop out, or for very many of his supporters to abandon him when the process comes down to the two-person race many anticipate between Mitt Romney and Herman Cain or Rick Perry. Instead, I could see Paul gaining support, especially if Cain’s candidacy is blown up by sexual harassment charges.

Mr. Zogby likens Rep. Paul's candidacy to those of Ralph Nader, in that both have been strong rejections of the existing two-party (or one-party with two faces*) system. In his view, Rep. Paul's candidacy will pressure the other hopefuls to cater more to the libertarian wing of the party -- but notes that the reward might not be worth the risk to candidates, such as Mitt Romney, who will be facing a President Obama posing himself as a "centrist" against the "extremist" GOP.
Mr. Zogby concludes:

Paul gets labeled a fringe candidate. But in this era of a closely divided electorate, anyone who commands the allegiance that Paul does from an activist libertarian movement must be accounted for in the political calculus.

I personally do not think a Ron Paul nomination is completely implausible. The media have been feeding on Presidential candidates like piranha in the Amazon, destroying the candidacies of one after the other. I would not rule out the possibility that Rep. Paul might be the last candidate standing come June. With a choice as sharply defined as the one a Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama election would provide, we would know for sure just where the American people want to go.
On a personal note, I know my output has been low this month. I am finishing work on my book (really), and expect to get back up to speed next week.

* As evidenced by their Congressional delegations "failing to agree" on a deficit-reduction package. It's not a failure to agree -- in fact it was the reverse. They agreed to continue business as usual indefinitely.

The burning issue

We face many issues in national politics today. Building our economic base to employ our people, resolving our foreign wars, maintaining value in our currency, ensuring access to health care, and ensuring the stability of Social Security and Medicare, are just a few of them. We hear debates between candidates that offer many approaches to these and other issues.

However, all of these discussions boil down to one burning issue. Its resolution will determine how, and how well, the others will be addressed. It is this: Do we have the confidence to govern ourselves?

 

Those who have that confidence favor local solutions, personal responsibility, defense at home, and entrepreneurship. They share Thomas Jefferson's vision of a nation of farmers and artisans, living perhaps more modestly, but in harmonious and spiritually satisfying relationships with God and their neighbors. They want to enjoy the wealth that they have created through their own efforts. They want charity to come from the heart as they cheerfully give of their bounty. Jeffersonians seek impartial justice. They seek the highest expression of human creativity and service.  They are willing to accept the risks of financial insecurity in exchange for the blessings of liberty.

Those who lack that confidence favor top-down solutions, collectivism, empire-building and corporate investment. They share Alexander Hamilton's vision of a wealthy and powerful nation that builds on the sacrifices of its people.  They find that religion and tradition hinder progress. Their notion of charity is doling out money from the government as it confiscates the work of others. Hamiltonians seek a perversion of justice that favors their friends. They seek productivity and a strong bottom line above everything else, and condition the people to accept the loss of liberty in the name of personal security.

This burning issue has been with us since 1787. In the early years of the Republic, the clash between the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian visions provided a creative tension that helped build the nation. When Andrew Jackson shut down the Bank of the United States, the Jeffersonians prevailed, but only for a generation. Abraham Lincoln's crusade to "save the Union" supposedly resolved the issue for all time, as the Hamiltonians gained, and continue to hold, the upper hand.

Today, we see where Hamiltonian corporatism has taken us. The federal government has nearly destroyed the initiative of the people and the states to solve their own problems. It has confiscated the wealth of its people in taxes and destroyed the desire to create new business opportunities. American manufacturing has become a faint memory of the past, as its jobs and money have been exported to other lands. The Hamiltonians have built a "nanny state" that has even turned many of our adults into spoiled children living as its dependents; instead of the productive, contributing people God meant us to be. It has brought us to economic ruin. The near future is likely to bring poverty for the majority, hyperinflation, slavery to the state, mass frustration, and revolution.

The differences between Democrat and Republican, "conservative" and "liberal" are no longer relevant. Both Republicans and Democrats are Hamiltonians. The Jeffersonians have been relegated to minor parties, Tea Parties, media obscurity; and being informed by their self-appointed betters that they and their Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, are "wingnuts" unworthy of being reported in the media, let alone enjoying a place at the table.

The Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian visions are utterly incompatible. Those who would harmonize the two positions might as well try to make a compromise between good and evil. The only people who benefit from a powerful national government are bankers, the military-industrial and medical-insurance complexes, and the politicians they can buy in Washington. The rest of us not only suffer financially, we suffer from the wasteful loss of lives in wars that have nothing to do with defense, and everything to do with greed.

Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. Every election in the last sixty years has replayed the same struggle. Yet, regardless of which party has been in power, the result has been the same: more power and more money to Washington, less freedom and less opportunity for us. We keep hoping against hope that things will be better after the next election. We should have learned by now that elections alone cannot fix a corrupt system.

Can we cure our own insanity? Right now, we can work with our state legislators to defend our interest through nullification and secession, but this opportunity will not last long. We can assert the self-confidence to rule ourselves and to cultivate the virtues we need to maintain a free society. Or we can settle for the tyrant who promises security, even after he begins to jail and murder us by the tens of thousands. Do not say it cannot happen here. We are human. We have known for thousands of years that our actions will eventually bring predictable consequences. The laws of human behavior do not respect "American exceptionalism."

This is the burning issue: do we have the confidence to rule ourselves? Its resolution will determine how, and how well, the others will be addressed.

My dream ticket

I still believe that trying to elect a President and Congress that will reverse the trend toward bigger government is an exercise in futility; but at the same time, it is unchristian to completely lose hope. So with that attitude, I propose the dream ticket for the Republican and Libertarian Parties:

Ron Paul and Karen Kwiatkowski

Rep. Ron Paul

Ron Paul does not need much introduction. He is the gadfly Congressman who opposes the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya; is a stickler for the feds obeying the Constitution, and wants the Federal Reserve Bank to be audited. No better man can be found for reversing the destructive trend we are facing in America.

But you may be thinking, Karen who?  Karen U. Kwiatkowski (SourceWatch biography, Wikipedia biography*) is a retired lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force. She is very knowledgeable about military matters and understands strategic issues. With this background and experience, she can reassure fearful Americans that demilitarization will not leave us as vulnerable to the terrorists and Chinese as they might think. Her knowledge is not limited to military matters. She can speak articulately to the needs of families and education (and why they are not the business of the federal government!). She is a regular contributor to the libertarian website LewRockwell.com, and has appeared twice in The Ohio Republic (via LewRockwell, of course). At the same time, she is relatively young (50), energetic, and provides a nice counterpoint to Ron Paul's sometimes dry, academic style. And I have no doubt that, if it became necessary, that she would make an effective President in her own right. She is also a registered Libertarian and a candidate for Congress in Virginia's Sixth District.

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret.)

I do not propose Ms. Kwiatkowski because she is a woman, but let's face it, we need a woman as President or Vice President. We need someone to counteract the excessive hubris that pervades the District of Coercion. Those who are impressed with Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin need to think about their weaknesses, as well as their strengths.

Pairing the wise, grandfatherly Ron Paul with the vigorous Karen Kwiatkowski is a winning strategy for regaining our freedom in 2012.

* Minor correction to the biographies. The article that got her started politically was in the Akron Beacon Journal.

Rasmussen Reports: President Obama has a 1 point lead over Ron Paul

According to a Rasmussen Report poll released on Tuesday, Ron Paul is running only one point behind President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 matchup (39%-38% of likely voters). However, the same source states that among likely Republican voters, Dr. Paul is favored by only 9%, behind Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Michelle Bachmann. Dr. Paul enjoys a ten-point lead among independent voters.

This suggests that the Republican primary will be a bigger hurdle for Dr. Paul than the election itself.

I cite these figures as a strong indicator that the libertarian message is beginning to reach the American people. However, I am not confident that, if Ron Paul be elected, that he would be able to effect significant change, because I cannot envision a Congress that would cooperate with him.

In my opinion, independence would be much easier and more effective as a means for restoring liberty in Ohio than to turn around the Leviathan in Washington.

However, both ideas are non-starters until we can persuade the Republican loyalists and neoconservatives that militarism is against our national interest.

Ron Paul needs a debate coach

I only heard a little of the Republican Presidential candidate debate in Ames, Iowa, last night -- and only one answer from Ron Paul. I passionately support his ideas, but he needs work on his delivery, so that average American voters can understand what he is talking about. Fortunately, historian Tom Woods is more than willing to help, and offers some great suggestions.

Ron and Rand Paul form tag team to audit the Fed

From Business Wire:

Congressman Ron Paul and his son, Senator Rand Paul, today introduced companion legislation in both chambers of the United States Congress to require a full and thorough audit of the Federal Reserve.

The bills, both titled The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011, but known better as “Audit the Fed,” are numbered H.R. 459 in the House and S. 202 in the Senate and continue the efforts championed by Ron Paul last year that won 320 co-sponsors before passing the House and 32 cosponsors in the Senate before falling short on a floor vote.

H.R. 459 starts the session with 56 original bipartisan cosponsors, while Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) are original cosponsors for S. 202.

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011 would open up the Fed’s funding facilities, such as the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, Term Securities Lending Facility, and Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility to Congressional oversight and audit by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office. Additionally, audits would include discount window operations, open market operations, and agreements with foreign central banks such as ongoing dollar swap operations with European central banks.

The Wall Street bankers have reason to be afraid -- very, very afraid.

The rest of us have a cause to press with our Congressmen and Senators. This is only the first step toward honest money, but we can not progress farther without it.

Ron Paul becomes subcommittee chairman

.. of the Domestic Monetary Affairs Subcommittee in the U.S. House taking office next month. It was announced last night on Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch show on the Fox Business Network.

There are still a few questions as to how long a leash incoming House Speaker John Boehner will give him, especially since Rep. Boehner will hold the subpoena power; but for now, it is a sign of hope that, just maybe, we can start in the direction of honest money.

But don't sell your gold and silver yet...

Video is from The Daily Paul.

Glenn Beck: You're still not getting it

I find much to like about Glenn Beck. I admire his willingness to witness for God on his program, his courage in connecting the dots of those who are trying to destroy our country, and his emphasis on the virtues of faith, hope, and charity.

With this in mind, I had great hopes when I began to listen to his 8-28 Restoring Honor rally in Washington, which is still going on as I write this. However, I had to turn it off. I was beginning to get sick.

For all of his commitment to liberty, and I believe that commitment is genuine, he has a blind spot. He still thinks that liberty and union are compatible goals at this point in our history. He still cannot distinguish between respect for the sacrifices of our military, and the fact that they are being used for evil purposes.

He wants us to return to God, while he and 300,000 other people are prostrating themselves at the altar of nationalism. The Biblical record is clear that God does not care about maintaining empires. He causes them to be built, and causes them to be destroyed, according to His purposes. That he has no use for blind nationalism should be clear from the fall of Israel and Judaea in the books of the Kings, and of Babylonia in the book of Daniel.

As to honor, isn't honor being faithful to your values, abroad as well as at home? Is it not respect for God, even to the point of understanding when God's will and the nation's are moving in opposite directions?

Oh, to be sure, I had some clues this was going to happen. I was disappointed when he chose the steps of Lincoln Memorial for the site of his rally; for he chooses to honor the man who, more than any other, began the process of destroying our Constitutional government. Then, when I heard that one of his featured speakers was going to be Sarah Palin, I knew that the message I had hoped to hear from him was going to be, at best, corrupted. I certainly am not alone in this assessment. Ron Paul argued essentially the same thing in the Foreign Policy website only yesterday. (Other concurring voices have arisen. See the updates at the end of this post.)

Please understand, I'm not totally naïve. I know there are times when we must protect our country from attack, and that we must be prepared to sacrifice lives to do it. In fact, we live in such a time right now. If ever we needed a military to defend our homeland from invasion, it is now -- in Arizona! But the policy of the feds is to sacrifice lives to protect oil and somehow reform very traditional Islamic societies in Iraq and Afghanistan -- not to provide for the national defense.

We must face up to the fact that terrorism, of which 9-11 was a symptom, is partially our fault. I am not defending Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, or the imam who wants to build the Islamic cultural center in New York. What they are doing is despicable, and they need to be neutralized. But al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and that imam would not have the support they do against us, if we had followed George Washington's wise counsel and minded our own business -- something we have not done since at least 1845, when we decided to poke into Mexico to pick up some additional territory.

We say we believe in liberty and justice, but what gives us the right to say that our ideas of liberty and justice are the only legitimate ones? The experience of Iraq and Afghanistan should serve as harsh reminders to us, that carrying out our ideas of liberty and justice require a mature understanding of the Western concept of the rule of law over men -- a maturity that neither society yet enjoys.

Can we really speak of honor when we persist in upholding a system that is broken beyond repair?

Where is honor when we talk about economic opportunity, then preserve the Federal Reserve Bank that steals from them by issuing funny money; when we pursue environmental policies on the basis of questionable science; or admits immigrants into this country with no expectation that they will speak our language and respect our laws and traditions?

These are the times that try men's souls, as Thomas Paine once wrote. Glenn, that includes you. Prayerfully consider the possibility that we live in a time when united we fall, divided we stand. It's not conventional wisdom, and it certainly was not what we learned in school. But in a world that is being increasingly oppressed by multinational corporations and overcentralized governments, it may very well be the truth.

Update 8/28: Chuck Baldwin also appears to agree with me when he writes that we need a revolution, not a movement. Here are two brief excerpts:

The American people need to wake up to this [truth]: a “conservative” movement–even a conservative Tea Party movement–will not save us. The only thing that will save us is an old-fashioned State revolt... As long as freedom lovers are content to remain satisfied with the status quo by allowing party politics and media celebrities to dominate their efforts, there will be no stopping this socialist avalanche that is crashing down upon us.

The Tea Party movement of 2010 (if left free of Big-Government neocons) could certainly translate into positive developments this November; that is for sure. A revival of the “Ron Paul Revolution” in 2012 could also make a significant contribution, but it is
going to take a State revolution to seal the deal. I, for one, am ready.

Update 8/29: Concurring opinions from several young men at Free South Carolina (video). Great quotes: "Managed dissent is not dissent." "The United States very cleverly learned from these other totalitarian and repressive societies: As long as there are these little outlets for people's tension and exasperation. The vast majority of them will be content to express their dissent this way. Ultimately, it is not dissent. It is peaceful, it is non-meaningful, it is non-change inducing."

Highlights from the Young Americans for Liberty Rally Mar. 8

I promised last week to give some highlights "when time permits". It took a week for the time to permit, but here are the memorable moments for me:

I was impressed with singer Jordan Page, who sings protest songs in a style somewhat reminiscent of those from the Vietnam era, but with a harder edge to the music. I particularly liked "The Pendulum Swings" and "The War Machine". I also noticed that he was wearing an "End the Fed" T-shirt. The young people are remarkably sophisticated about their understanding of the Federal Reserve Bank, a subject on which the vast majority of their elders are completely ignorant.

Judge Andrew Napolitano hosts an Internet-radio show each evening at 7 pm on foxnews.com. His style of interviewing is not journalistic, but asks loaded questions as a softball lead-in to the respondent's answers. Sometimes, the questions turn into speeches; but it's good for rousing the troops.

Here are quotations from Judge Napolitano's guests:

Sheriff Richard Mack (founder of OathKeepers):
"Nothing is more important than for an official to uphold his oath to defend the Constitution."
(Quoting Judge Antonin Scalia:) "The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions."
"The sheriff is the last line of defense against federal tyranny… Sheriffs have no duty to obey unconstitutional laws."

Candidate Ron Hood, former state representative running for the Republican nomination in the 7th Congressional District:
"State legislators are not interested in the Tenth Amendment – they're interested in federal bribe money."

State House candidate Alicia Healy:
"People have been deceived as to what government can do for them."

Judge Napolitano:
"The greatest right, after right to life, is the right to be left alone."

Dave Grabaskas, president of the Young Americans for Liberty at Ohio State University:
"There is a two-party system: the Establisment vs. us."
(Question from Judge Napolitano: What made young people realize the need to change?")
"[The federal government] abandoning everything we hold dear, and seeing [President] Obama elected and doing the same things the Republicans did."
(Reaction from Judge Napolitano: Tell the neoconservatives and social conservatives, "Go back to the Democratic Party from where you came!")

From Ron Paul's speech:

"'Preventive war' means that we initiate the war… We just marched in, why don't we just march home?"
"The Constitution is supposed to hold the government in check, not hold the people in check!"
"When the government is bankrupt, the federal government will become irrelevant because it will be unable to bribe us."
"The Second Amendment wasn't put there for rabbit hunting."
"We've had too much bipartisanship. [It is] overwhelming when it endorses Keynesian economics." He observed that both parties support the Federal Reserve Bank and continuing the wars abroad.

On U.S. foreign policy:
"Principled non-intervention is not isolationism."
"Bring all the troops home – not just from the Middle East, but from Germany, Japan [and everywhere else]."
"The United States Government has a policy of assassinating U.S. citizens if they are deemed a threat by unknown people in the Administration – without trial or due process of law."
"Instead of giving other nations money or bombs, why don't we just give them friendship and trade? … Look at what we achieved with peace in Vietnam, compared to what we lost with war in Vietnam."

"The solution to economic problems is very simple: just get government out of the way. We don't need bailouts, just get rid of the income tax!"
"It's your life and your responsibility. You have the right to keep the fruits of your labor."
The principle of income tax: "The government owns you and lets you keep a certain percentage of your income." Rep. Paul cited Selective Service (registration for the military draft) as another example of the same principle.

"The real purpose of life is to work for virtue and excellence."

Revolution in the mosh pit

That's one way to describe the Young Americans for Liberty rally at the Newport Music Hall Monday evening. About 2,000 people attended, the great majority of them college students. The first hour featured interviews by Judge Andrew Napolitano on his FoxNews.com program Freedom Watch (videos below). The second hour was a speech by Congressman Ron Paul. It was inspiring to see both the enthusiasm of the young adults for the liberty movement, and their sophistication -- they understand why we need to End the Fed, where most of their elders are clueless.

Work and life have (and will continue to) intrude on my blogging time this week, but I do want to share the videos of Judge Napolitano's show with you. (You will need Adobe Flash Player to play the videos). When time permits, I shall share with you some highlights and comments.

Part 1, featuring Maurice Thompson at Ohio's 1851 Center for Constitutional Law:

Part 2, featuring Congressman Ron Paul:

Part 3, featuring State Senator Timothy Grendell (R-Chesterland), author of Ohio's state sovereignty resolution SCR13:

Part 4, featuring Dave Grabaskas, president of the Ohio State University Young Americans for Liberty:

Videos of Rep. Paul's speech are on The Daily Paul.

From here to freedom

Here is an article in LewRockwell.com by Congressman Ron Paul on how a strict Constitutionalist President could begin dismantling the federal government in a way that would reduce spending, balance the budget, and, over time, put an end to entitlements without throwing people out into the street.

One of the biggest problems of the liberty movement is the need to show America a vison of a future in freedom. Until we can draw that picture, we will remain vulnerable to our liberal critics.

Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano will be in Columbus for a Freedom Watch rally, to be held Monday, March 8, at the Newport Music Hall, 1722 North High Street, between 12th and 13th Avenues. Doors will open at 6:15 pm, with speeches beginning at 7 pm. The event is free and open to the public, and is sponsored by the Young Americans for Liberty at Ohio State University.