Ron Paul 2008!

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

I want this
man
,Dr. Ron Paul, to be the president of the United States.

Believe me,
I'm not the type to go from one so-called leader to another pinning
all my hopes on their greatness like some Deaniac. I don't like
politicians. I didn't like Ann Richards. I don't like Bush Jr. I
didn't like Ronald Reagan, I don't like Bush's dad and I don't like
Bill Clinton. I don't like Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, Trent Lott,
Newt Gingrich, Nancy what’s-her-name, John D. Rockefeller IV or
bitch-ass Harry Reid. I can’t stand any of the presidential
candidates. Politicians are scum. All of them. Nothing but a band
of highway robbers, the lot of 'em. Liars! Warmongers! Jailers!
Bastards! Two wings of one bird of prey! Not a dime's worth of difference!

Except Ron
Paul.

For more than
10 years I have had one and only one reason to have hope for the
possibility that the course our government is on could be turned
around short of ruin; one congressman out of 535 who represented
me. One politician I could refer to and say, u201Cgo read his u2018A
Republic, If You Can Keep It
,' and you'll see what I mean,u201D
and know that there was a damn good chance whoever-it-was really
would understand by the time they were done.

Not only is
he right about 95% percent of the time, Ron Paul is a kind, decent
and principled individual and individualist. Read his position on
natural rights here,
for example.

Congressman
Paul ought to have his own Ph.D. in Austrian economics, the school
of peace, little-to-no government and free trade. He's a medical
doctor, not a lawyer. The lobbyists don't even bother to knock on
his office door since they know he'll smile and nod and then vote
u201Cnou201D on their project anyway. He refused government welfare for
his kids to go to college, he delivered babies for free or on a
sliding-scale type of payment plan rather than accept Medicare and
Medicaid, he is refusing his congressional pension and he returns
a substantial portion of his office budget back to the treasury
at the end of every term (or fiscal year or however they do it).
He's never voted himself a pay raise (not even through the modern
technicality of u201Cautomaticu201D cost-of-living increases), and has never
— never — voted to raise taxes.

They call him
u201CDr. Nou201D because 95% of what the national government does is unconstitutional
and he votes according to his oath — which often leaves him all
by himself. A committed non-interventionist, he predicted the fall
of the USSR if the U.S. would only stop propping them up. He opposed
the first Iraq war in 1990/91 and the second Iraq war since 1998.
When first coming back to Congress in 1997, he spoke against the
overseas bases being used to stage the endless attacks on Iraq which
provided the motive for those responsible for the attacks of September
11th.

Paul has opposed
every Federal gun control bill that has ever come his way, along
with the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Transportation
Security Administration Act, the Homeland Security Act and just
about anything else you could think of.

A fierce defender
of America’s independence — and that of every other country
— Paul opposes NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, IMF, World Bank, UN and NATO.
He's against central banking — recognizing it as the cause of, not
solution to, the business cycle and a destroyer of savings. He proposes
to let Americans circulate their own gold-backed currencies, repealing
the taxes and restrictions which now forbid it. He wants to use
his bully pulpit to encourage the Congress and the several states
to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, abolish the personal income tax
and to end, once and for all, the depredations of the sinister IRS.

When they ask
him about his heroes, he answers Gandhi and MLK. They resisted the
state non-violently, and that's important, Paul says.

Rep. Ron Paul
M.D. is, as far as I can tell, the greatest congressman in American
History — the last of the Jeffersonians — and that doesn't mean
he's flawless. He's just a regular, humble old guy. That's part
of why I like him so much. He sometimes stumbles around and starts
his sentences over again the same way I do when I'm trying to explain
something right. A lot of times he speaks in a sort of shorthand
that just leaves it to the audience to try to figure out what the
hell he means. He's not like one of those Mitt Romney/Rick Perry–type
polyurethane politicians. In fact, lately I've seen him do a pretty
funny politician impression in a couple of interviews.

Sometimes,
if rarely, I disagree with how he votes in the House and there have
been a few mistakes in his campaign, including, as has been pointed
out — with some undo hysteria, it seems to me — some pretty lousy
TV spots, particularly the one about one of the issues I most strongly
disagree with him on: immigration.

Well, good.
It's nice to have something to criticize the man about for a change.

(As far as
the smears about Dr. Paul being some sort of mean bigoted type,
I think it is quite obvious with a moment on YouTube that it
simply cannot be true
; that he just doesn’t have the temperament
to be a hater. The angriest I've seen him in all these clips has
come out in statements like u201C…and you jolly-well better
realize it,u201D u201C…that can sometimes be pretty annoying,u201D and u201CI mean,
what the devil?u201D Sorry, the champion of individual liberty for all
is not a meanie, a racist or oppressor. I'm afraid the smear artists
will have to stick to arguing against his policies, which can be
quite difficult, I know.)

Ron Paul is
no knight on a white horse, but a just regular man running for Napoleon's
job — as it already exists — in order to turn it back into the presidency
as described in Article II of the Constitution. This mission of
Paul’s, running for President and against the presidency,
is something that any defender of liberty must value in this current
age of executive kidnapping, u201Cghost prisons,u201D torture, aggressive
war, widespread wiretapping, trillion-dollar military budgets, the
u201Cunitary executiveu201D doctrine, signing statements and the doctrine
of the u201Cplenaryu201D powers of the commander in chief of the armed forces
in undeclared wartime.

Face it, America
has gotten this entire post–Cold War/Beginning of the 21st
Century thing off to a real bad start. The peace dividend is blown,
the population of most of the world now puts our government in the
same category as the old Soviet empire or worse, the budget is blown,
the dollar is worth less all the time and our liberties are under
more threat from the government than they've been in a long time.

The candidacy
of Ron Paul is the best hope to get America back on track. This
is particularly true in regards to our government's relationship
with other states in the world, protection of individual rights
here at home and in terms of preserving our republican form of government;
the checks and balances and separations of power defined in our
Constitution and its Bill of Rights (restrictions)
which are meant to protect us from the kind of tyranny overthrown
by the generation of 1776.

These are principles
which, at this point, federalists and antifederalists, liberals,
conservatives, right-wingers, leftists, communists, rednecks, boys
and girls, employers and employees, country and rock-n-roll and
individuals of all ethnic backgrounds, religions and descriptions
in America ought to be able to agree on. They are the principles
that make this America in the first place.

The message
of individual liberty unites us. Isn’t it cool how that works?

To the
Right: Paul wants to get at the actual threat. What he opposes
is all this empire
building
, foreign “aid” and the backing of other
people's dictators. The former chief of the CIA's bin Laden Unit
says Paul's policy is the best for solving the Osama problem. Quite
a few others agree. See here
and here.
What other problem do you have? Paul represents what you claim to
believe in — at least he agrees with you about what government ought
to stop doing to people, if not all the things you want government
to do to people. Seems like a reasonable compromise to
me. And none of the other GOP candidates even come close.

To the
Left: Many of you object that Ron Paul wants to set the corporations
free along with the rest of us, which to you seems a terrible mistake.
Here's what
you're missing
: The entire project that is the national government
of the United States is to take money from us working folks and
give it to the people who are already rich. I know this is hard
to accept after a lifetime of beltway “libertarians”
complaining in your ear about the transfer payments the other way
around, but no, really.

It's the bazillionaires
who benefit the most from big government. It is their escape from
the risks of the market. You want those greedy corporate bastards
to have to shape up or go out of business don't you? You have to
set them free — to face the wrath of the sharp competitor and the
fed-up consumer. No more welfare for Lockheed. No more welfare for
Archer-Daniels Midland. No more welfare for Halliburton. No more
welfare for Goldman-Sachs or Citigroup. No more welfare for Wal-Mart.
No more welfare for Exxon. No subsidies. No bailouts. Get it? This
is Austrian economics. Please don't mix u2018em up with the right-socialist/demand-side-for-the-rich
Chicago monetarist school.

Also, no matter
what they may have told you, Ron is running to rein in the empire
and reinstate the Bill of Rights, not to abolish the welfare state
for social security and Medicare recipients. In fact, he offers
the only real plan to shore those programs up, bring the military
home from overseas, save the dollar and guarantee that for the people
who have been made to pay in their whole lives, they not only get
their checks, but they get them in dollars whose value is not being
inflated away day by day.

Ron Paul is
the only credible candidate who means to end the Iraq and Afghan
occupations and bring our military home from their 750+ overseas
bases. Isn’t that what you want?

To the
anarchists: I personally would very much like to see major
portions of Article 1, Section 8 removed, followed by a return to
the Articles of Confederation, secession and eventually a private
property, individual liberty–based anarchy in the world, but
there should be no doubt that reinstating the Constitution as the
law of the land would be a great step toward that wonderful no-government
future. A Paul presidency is not likely to justify or legitimize
the state, but instead will prove just how little we need it. And
what's the alternative, wait for the empire to crash all around
us?

So far, the
Ron Paul campaign for the presidency has gone far, far better than
I could have imagined when I first heard he was running. It turns
out that just because he is one of a kind in terms of politicians,
it didn't mean there weren't millions of us who believe in the same
things — enough of us to compete with the financial totals of the
War Party players. Many on board this Revolution have been little
l libertarians all their lives and just needed someone to
explain it to them out loud. If Paul gets the nomination, I think
he'll have no trouble beating Obama or Clinton in the fall and as
president will be able to refuse to do a great many things. It would
be cause for beer drinking, barbecues, fireworks and celebrations
across the land.

If he doesn't,
then whether he goes back to the House, makes an independent run,
both or however it shakes out, no one really knows. But America,
as local Meetup organizer Paul Davis pointed out in his speech at
the Austin, Texas Tea Party of 2007, has already been changed forever
by this movement of regular Americans stepping up to restore the
rule of law to this country, to prevent any further descent of our
society into this brave old world of mercantilism, perpetual war,
and the expansion of executive power into every aspect of our lives
— and even to make some major reversals before the worst consequences
of empire come due. It’s the fruition of the classical liberal
revival so many libertarians have worked so hard to build over the
years. Perhaps it is even the beginning of a permanent new realignment
in America. Peace and Freedom are a big deal again.

Already the
other congressmen are asking Paul how to get people to like them
(and give them money) too. The message is loud and clear: start
with following the example of Ron Paul’s dedication to liberty.

Maybe Garet
Garrett
was wrong. Maybe it's not too late to restore the republic.

January
3, 2008

Scott Horton
[send him mail] is assistant
editor at Antiwar.com, hosts Antiwar Radio in Austin, Texas and
runs the blog Stress.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare