What's with the Ron Paul bashing?

JMoon

Every four years our presidential elections showcase a dozen or more generic candidates whose positions on critical issues seem closely aligned with sets of artificial answers their campaign managers and speechwriters pound into their heads. Why during every televised debate do most candidates limp along, just pandering to their small base while trying not to say anything outside of the ordinary? Maybe for fear they might be open to criticism from those who demand politically transparent debate?

It was refreshing to see Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul included in the debates. All have strong political backgrounds and stay honest to their core principles, which is most of what they have in common. Of the three, only Ron Paul has managed to garner any significant support with his message spreading throughout the world. It is quickly becoming clear that his followers are not a few spammers and his message of life and liberty is articulate and appealing to the populace. While his support base is indeed growing, there is also a large troop of critics that oppose his campaign with many doing so for the mere sake of opposition.

The trouble with folks opposing a candidate for any reason other than his position on important issues is that individuals that dislike or are annoyed by grassroots movements may very well help the uniformed decide the outcome of the election. Groups of individuals that have knowledge of and agree with relevant issues drive grassroots movements in an attempt to elect their preferred candidate as opposed to much of the population that receives their information from the MSM without much in depth knowledge, and then attempts to elect a candidate based on popularity. Instead of disregarding or censoring information generated and driven by a grassroots organization, one should honesty try to understand the ideas being expressed.

There was a point in American history when politics was considered “The only game in town.” Not because the populous were bored out of their minds, but because people had a genuine interest in their potential representatives as well as the logical debate that was required to elect them. This is a free society and one cannot be faulted for being uninterested in politics; that is their individual right. Conversely, if one is uninterested in politics but still votes because he or she likes the vast fleet of personal jets their candidate owns, the political process is imperiled.

Instead of bashing Ron Paul’s name with curses and slander, it would be nice if his critics pointed out the flaws in his position as well as the reasoning behind them, and if we want to promote our candidate because we truly believe the direction he will navigate our country will be beneficial to society while protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we shouldn’t whisper his name under our breath! We should holler it at the top of lungs!!

Is the Economy Ready for Ron Paul?

JMoon


As of late I have noticed potential Ron Paul supporters a little hesitant to join the revolution, deciding instead that his ideas are a bit too extreme or they don’t necessarily understand them. I have only one thing to say to you folks, “don’t give up on Ron Paul man, no one else will fight for your liberty.” His theories are sound and they can be practically implemented without the destruction of the economy. It is true that the government will eliminate many jobs through cutbacks in its size and scope, but this process will be gradual and many ideas he wishes to implement would actually create jobs. Here are just a few.

*He will recall our troops from the 100+ counties they are stationed in. Billions of US dollars that our government pays them will be injected into our economy as our troops spend their money in America instead of foreign economies. An increase in the demand for goods will create an increase in the supply of goods, which will require more labor to manufacture them.

*He will be tough on illegal immigration creating a greater demand for domestic workers when some or if not most illegal immigrants go back to their home country. Domestic workers will also demand a higher income than the departed immigrants and the average income will increase. He also plans to expand the legal immigration system, which will give our economy a steady stream of skilled workers.

*He doesn’t support regulating trade, but when US manufacturing jobs are lost to countries such as China and Mexico because of unfair and sometimes-cruel labor practices; tariffs will be applied to their products. The tariffs create a higher demand for domestic products because they become more competitive against cheap labor manufacturing. Again, an increase in the demand of a product will increase the supply and will require more manufacturing and more jobs. Tariffs will also allow an increase in government spending or a decrease of taxes.

*The tax breaks Americans will get because of less government programs will increase the spending power of Americans and unless every tax dollar saved by every individual is stuffed into a savings account or under a mattress, jobs will be created. Don’t hoard all your money!

* The destruction of the failed experiments known as the Federal Reserve and IRS will result in huge amounts of time and money saved. I would attempt to calculate this, but the final figures would be absolutely astronomical. Both agencies create absolutely nothing but cost the taxpayers billions. If the faulty monetary policy and time wasted were included, than that number would be in the trillions! For nothing!! Not one damn product to speak for!!!

It seems the lesson here is "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." The actions of our government that created the monstrous regulations and bureaucracies forced the reaction of inefficiency in our free markets. Some may say that regulations and bureaucracies are necessary. Regulations protect the consumer and bureaucracies enforce the regulations, right? The truth is government institutions will always be less efficient, more corrupt and less effective than their private counterparts. If laws that protected individuals from businesses were created and penalties enforced, than business owners would create much more effective oversight tools than any government agency ever could.

I am reminded of a recent example of the inadequacy of government institutions. Cattle farmers throughout the US wished to test 100% of the cattle for mad cow disease instead of the 1% tested by the DOA. This will allow them to market their beef to retailers and restaurants that have health conscious customers. What was the Department of Agricultures response you say? One would think they would love the idea of a business taking such a responsible step. Here is the outcome. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F04E6DB1338F933A25757C0A9629C8B63

Ron Paul does not have the most revolutionary of ideas. He does not stand for principles that are foreign to American history. Dr. Paul encompasses the combined intentions of our Founding Fathers and will not stray from the intentions of the constitution. The Founding Fathers would laugh in disgust at what we call our “free market and individual liberties.” Our markets are not free, our lives without liberty. Ron Paul’s will change that. His ideas are not revolutionary, nor radical; they are only the continuation of the greatest experiment in human governance ever undertaken.