Posts Tagged ‘Ron Paul’

Ron Paul’s quote on dead Seal

Posted by Troy on 6th February 2013 in Current Events, Political

Ron Paul’s twitter account came under fire for saying that someone who lives by the sword will die by the sword.  It also went on to make a point that treating PTSD at a gun range is a bad idea.  Well…yeah, granted (especially in hindsight, right?).  I am a Ron Paul supporter (for the most part anyway).  One thing I want to say is that I seriously doubt that Ron Paul tweeted this himself.  He was in the Air Force.  He technically lived by the sword too.  Also, Ron Paul is older, and older people tend to respect and honor life.  I think this is much to do about nothing.

Long live the Constitution!

Ron Paul and the 2012 election

Posted by Troy on 27th August 2012 in Current Events, Political

First, I supported Ron Paul.  That being said, we should not do any sort of write-in campaign.  Should Obama win in 2012, there will not be a country left to save by 2016.  The fact of the matter is that Libertarians currently have no shot of winning a Presidential election.  That is sad but true.  However, what is more useful is to go after House seats.  These are manageable elections that we can win.  In particular, Libertarians should reach out to the Tea Party.  While they are most often associated with Conservatives, you will find that the average Tea Partier is more in line with Libertarianism and Constitutionalism.  Libertarians should try to gain power inside the Republican Party (do remember that Ron Paul is technically a Republican).  While I do think that Libertarians appeal to Republicans and Democrats, I do not think that Libertarians can be Democrats.  The current Democrat schematic is for greater entitlements and greater government spending.  This necessitates greater regulations, laws, and bureaucracy–these are tenements that cannot be reconciled with Libertarianism.  If Libertarians have more Legislative seats, we can turn back bad laws.  We can also trim down government spending.  Finally, we can audit the Federal Reserve.  However, if Obama wins, we are toast.  Understand that I understand where you are coming from, but we must be patient.  We need to win district after district in the primaries.  We need to become a regional force.  Then we will push to become a national force.  After that, then we can try for the White House.  If we try for it now, the only thing that will happen is that Obama will win re-election, and then there is nothing left to save.  Our nuclear arsenal will be further diminished.  We will give up more sovereignty to the UN.  We will continue to print worthless money destroying our dollar.  We will gain so much debt that it will be in surmountable.  There will be no possibility to remove Obamacare which will completely wreck our entire economy.

Long Live the Constitution!

Super Tuesday Results

Posted by Troy on 6th March 2012 in Current Events, Political

I doubt anyone is surprised at the results today.  I feel that the masses have been compelled to vote for Romney because “He’s the most electable” without any explanation as to why he is the most electable.  I wish that people could see that you cannot carry the general election with “Elect Romney!  He’s electable!”  I haven’t met anyone who supports Romney because they like Romney.  At least the other candidates have something going for them:

Newt has raw intelligence and a great understanding of history.  He is also the best debater out there.  I don’t know of any one who hates Obama that wouldn’t pay to see a debate between Obama and Newt.  His worst problem is the fact that the media hates him and does their best to destroy him.  It’s actually a bit sickening to watch the attacks against Newt (and others such as Palin).  I don’t see how we can believe that the media is supposed to be impartial.  I go into detail that the media was infiltrated by the Left in my novel 2084, and they did that to destroy their enemies and brainwash the youth.

Santorum has a comforting blandness.  Oddly, his faith is his biggest problem.  Why is it that being religious is a problem in America?  Freedom of religion has come to mean freedom from religion.  Here again, I discuss the war on religion in 2084 because religion gives a higher law than that of the government.

Ron Paul is the most steadfastly Constitutional candidate out there.  It is a shame that we strayed from the Constitution in the 1930s.  If we hadn’t, I do not believe we would have all these problems we have now.  We would not have had the debt, the breakdown of the American family, entitlements, and the hatred of America overseas.   Unfortunately, his Constitutionality is his weakness.  By not following the Constitution for so long, we have created so many problems that going instantly back to the Constitution would be like a druggie quitting cold turkey – it might kill him.  Could you imagine if we converted to a gold standard overnight?  His biggest problem is Iran, which was also caused by our unconstitutional foreign policy.  Our only hope is to go back to the Constitution, but it must be done in the same deliberate manner as the Left used to bring us to the brink of Socialism and destruction.

Romney…has the best hair?  I really hope that gas hits over $5.00 a gallon.  He’s gonna need the help, especially when Obama declares war on Iran out of desperation to stay in office for 4 more years.

Long Live the Constitution!

Fake Libertarian Ron Paul and Abortion

Posted by Troy on 25th February 2012 in Political

Lawrence O’Donnell has called Ron Paul, the most famous Libertarian in America (with the possible exclusion of Clint Eastwood), a false Libertarian because Ron Paul does not believe in abortion.  Last time I checked, Ron Paul’s stance is that abortion laws should be left up to the states to determine.  However, let me dissect O’Donnell’s arguement.

The first thing I would like to discuss is that it would appear as though, to be a Libertarian, one must live an chaotic (or anarchist if you prefer) existence devoid of any right or wrong.  A Libertarian doesn’t think the government should be making decisions on morality.  This is the sphere of the populace and churches, not of government.  Instead, Libertarians believe that governments should be concerned with protecting the rights and liberties of citizens against internal and external threats.  This is the form of government that the Founding Fathers envisioned.  Most of the Federal powers were intended to cover dealings with foreign nations and matters which concerned more than one state.  The states themselves were meant to go about making their own laws.  In fact, this almost makes a market place for states in which they must compete.  If people want gay marriage, they will move to Massachusetts.  If they want no income taxes, they will move to Texas.  It also would prevent the nation from being dragged under by debt.  A poorly managed state can go bankrupt without destroying the country…but the same cannot be said if the country itself goes broke.

A common misconception is that Libertarians are against any government and any laws.  As I pointed out in the previous paragraph, this is not true.  Libertarians believe that the government is set into place to safeguard individuals rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  How then does the Libertarian, Ron Paul, reconcile his beliefs about abortion with his political ideology?  This is so easy it shouldn’t even have to be discussed.  This is done by defining when life begins.  To Ron Paul, life begins at conception.  If this is the view he has, he has to be concerned about the rights of the baby to its life.  I believe that the abortion debate depends largely on this definition.  If one believes life starts at conception, then abortion is murder.  It can have no other definition.  Therefore, most pro-choice people depend on the definition that life begins at birth.

People behave as though abortion is an abomination of the modern era.  It is not.  The Hippocratic Oath stated that a physician will not give a woman an abortion.  Of course, doctors have chosen to cherry pick which of the oaths they want to follow, but that is beside the point.  This means that the practice of abortion has been around since before Christ.  In nomadic hunter/gatherer societies, infanticide was a common practice.  A mother could only carry one child.  If she had two children and both could not walk, she would kill one if they had to move.  Sparta also killed infants which were deformed.  My question then becomes: “Is the definition of when life begins cultural?”  If a pro-choice person was dropped into such a culture and saw a mother smother a three month old to death, would they view it as a matter of choice or a matter of murder?  A three month old is just as dependent on its mother (or another adult) to live as a fetus in the womb.  Is it moral for someone to kill the three month old but not a third trimester baby?  What about premature births? I assume that the difference must be argued that a baby in the womb only has one means of support, that of the mother.  A three month old could, technically, be passed on to someone else.  Of course, this means that it is only murder if a suitable caregiver could be located for the child.

Some believe that Ron Paul is a sexist because he doesn’t support abortion.  Why on Earth are these viewed as mutually exclusive?  I am sure that Ron Paul believes that women should have equal opportunities and equal protection under the law and equal pay for equal work.  However, as I mentioned before, if he believes that a baby is alive pre-birth, he must also be against abortion.  Only Democrats and members of NOW believe that being pro-woman necessitates being pro-choice.  Isn’t it interesting that no one is calling for greater personal responsibility?  Oh, they will always throw the “What if they were raped?” scenario out there, but how often is that the case?  I find it hard to believe that most abortions are rape related.  Equating the right of contraception (and I don’t know of anybody that thinks that only men should have access to contraception) and abortion to equality is silly.  This format means that men want to prevent women from having an abortion as a means of control, i.e. that they can knock a girl up and force her to marry him and stay at home and raise the kids.  This is the single most moronic thing I’ve ever heard of.  No one believes this, or is it anybody’s reason for being pro-life.  Pro-lifers are pro-lifers for one reason only: They believe that the fetus in the womb is a live human being and is granted all the rights of any other living being.  It has nothing to do with women’s rights.  Also, the sexual revolution (the pill, etc) has led to a culture in which casual sex is the norm.  I should image that most sexual encounters in the past were between people who knew and cared for one another.  An unplanned pregnancy could result in a successful marriage.  This is not the case of unplanned pregnancies which result from purely casual sex or recreational sex.  So we have traded the right to have meaningless sex, a mere moment’s pleasure here and there, for a lifetime of hardship.  This seems like a bad bargain.  It would be far better if both men and women refrained from having sex unless it is with someone with whom they would not mind having a baby, if a pregnancy were to occur despite precautions.

Let us next consider the whole concept of “choice.”  If a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, it is a matter of choice.  If the father slips something into her drink to cause a miscarriage, it is treated as a murder (in most states), and I believe that Democrats and members of NOW would demand that these cases be treated as murder and not as a civil case for loss of property.  So, that means that it is only a matter of choice when the woman decides (“My body, my choice”).  Fair enough, would Democrats and NOW be for allowing men to sue for an abortion then?  That is to say, if a man does not want to be inconvenienced with raising a child or making child support payments, can he sue to force a woman to have an abortion?  I bet the vast majority of Democrats and NOW members would find the concept abhorrent.  Why then cannot the man make the argument that “It is her body and her choice.  I told her that she should have an abortion.  As such, if she has the baby, it is her choice to do so, and I should not have to pay a cost for her choosing to have a baby when she could have just as easily chosen not to have a baby?”  I don’t think that Democrats and NOW would be up for that either.

I am not arguing the morality or immorality of abortion.  I am merely pointing out that Ron Paul’s stance is much more consistent than that of a pro-choice person.  The Libertarian does not withhold moral judgement of a person’s action.  They merely seek laws that protect one person’s rights against that of another.  A Libertarian can believe that prostitution should not be illegal for a variety of reasons but still say that going to prostitutes is wrong.  In America, you can burn Bibles, and it is free speech.  Virtually no one will hurt you, even though most people (including non-Christians) would say that doing so is distasteful and would frown upon such activities.  Try doing that in a Muslim country with the Koran, and see what happens.  In both countries, it is believed that you shouldn’t burn these books.  However, in one you are punished for doing this and the other you are not.  In no way does Ron Paul’s stance of abortion makes him a false Libertarian.

Long Live the Constitution!

Whitney Houston, Tony Bennett, and Legalization

Posted by Troy on 14th February 2012 in Current Events, Political

Tony Bennett is coming under fire for saying that legalizing drugs would have prevented Whitney Houston’s death.  In fairness, there was probably no way legalizing anything would have saved her.  Initial reports claim that it was medically prescribed drugs that did her in.  However, let’s examine the argument for legalizing drugs.

Do I have the right to eat dirt?  Do I have a right to eat glass?  For that matter, do I have a right to eat the greasiest cheeseburger I can find?  The number one killer in America is heart attacks.  If food Nazis are to be believed, this is a direct result of people eating the food they enjoy.  I am sure that nutritionists could come up with a diet for each individual which would maximize their health.  So why don’t we do that?  You can get by on the prescribed diet, so why should you have the right to decide what goes into your body, and how is this different than drugs?

Bill O’Reilly uses alcohol as a lesson as to why drugs should be be legal, since 10% of the population have problems with alcohol…so we should naturally deny the other 90% the option of using alcohol?  Regardless, his argument works against himself.  We tried making alcohol illegal, and we figured out it was a huge mistake and reversed ourselves.  We wound up with criminals making money bootlegging booze.  We round up with people getting sick from alcohol that was not made properly.  Does this sound familiar to you?

Right now, the main source of income from gangs and terrorists is drugs.  The mark-up on cocaine is 17,000%.  You are not going to get rid of a product that has a 17,000% return!  It is impossible.  However, if drugs were legal, people could grow it themselves for free (in the case of marijuana) or American farmers could make a clean product and actually cut the price for the end consumer.  The gangs would lose their source of revenue.  With no revenue to back them, they would fall apart pretty quickly, which would go a long way to ending gang violence.

Of course, I do not propose all drugs be legalized.  As with most Libertarians, I have an arbitrary rule.  For me, drugs that are natural products are okay.  If you have to add other chemicals to make a product, it should be illegal.  This would, in effect, make crack and meth illegal, and I believe these are the most dangerous drugs.

The main problem I have with drug laws is I don’t want to spend $50,000+ a year to put someone in jail for smoking pot.  I think that we need to take this into consideration when making laws and enforcing them.  I don’t think a pot user injures society $50,000 worth.  We spend billions of dollars every year to jail drug users and fight the “drug war,” and we only cut the drug supply by about 10% (which I am sure drug dealers up their production about 10% to compensate…there doesn’t seem to be a drug shortage here).  This is a bad investment, especially considering that we could be earning tax revenues from legalized sales and saving billions of dollars in salaries and equipment costs for the DEA and other agencies.

The final problem I have is that people seem to act as though, if drugs were made illegal, 80% of the population would go down and start using drugs.  Alcohol is legal.  How many people get drunk every day?  Right now, you can go down and buy a tube of glue and a paper bag and get high as a kite, yet we don’t do it.  Why?  Because most people realize it is not in their best, long-term interest.  People who like drug laws are worried about the symptom, not the problem.  The problem is that the American family has broken down.  I would hazard that, if you were to examine most drug users, you will find that many of them had home problems: be it abuse, an absent authority figure, or just apathetic parents.  However, dealing with symptoms is always easier than dealing with real problems.

Here is a link to additional research.

Long Live the Constitution!

Florida Debate

Posted by Troy on 26th January 2012 in Political

Ron Paul finally won a debate!  All of his answers were dead on right, and the crowd loved it.

Newt got his nose broken (mostly by Paul).  It was a rough night for him.

Romney also had some troubling skeletons came up.  His retort of “I don’t know what my financial adviser and campaign ads are doing,” isn’t really going to fly.

I have to say, even Santorum brought his A game and had some of the best answers of the night (behind Paul).  I think his two shining moments were talking about Honduras and how his Christianity matters (although Ron Paul’s answer was a close second).

The Next Reagan

Posted by Troy on 25th January 2012 in Human Nature, Political

I am annoyed every time a politician compares themselves to Ronald Reagan.  The fact of the matter is that Reagan is Reagan.  As Julie Andrews said, “Always be a first rate version of yourself, instead of  a second rate version of somebody else.”  I want someone to say that they are worthwhile, not that Reagan was worthwhile and they are somewhat like them.  I think Ron Paul is the only one who has not compared himself with Ronald Reagan.  I think that’s because he has no desire to been seen as anyone other than Ron Paul.  There’s something to be said about that.

State of the Union Speech

Posted by Troy on 24th January 2012 in Current Events, Political

Where do I begin?

For starters, his concepts about American manufacturing, American energy, and American Values.

Unless he wants to do away with the minimum wage, we are not going to have a lot of manufacturing jobs.  I suppose he could set out some prohibitive tariffs, but I doubt he has the guts, and it’s debatable as to the wisdom of that move.  He just shut down the Keystone pipeline and hasn’t allowed American companies to drill for oil, so he really loses a lot of credibility on this issue.  I suppose that he could say that he is very pro-American GREEN energy, which is not cost effective right now.  The fact of the matter is, if you agree that there’s a finite amount of oil in the world and we should be researching new energy to be ahead of the curve, then you should be for pumping as much crude as we can and use the profits to fund these projects so that we will use up the supply of a soon to be obsolete energy source.  As to American values, Obama’s perspective of American values runs counter to most of American.  Hell, his wife once commented that America was a “downright mean country.”  She also said that “for the first time in her adult life, she was proud of [her] country.”  Inferring Barrack’s beliefs should be fairly easy…he did marry her after all.

The President discussed everyone paying their fair share.  Here’s a quick question, what is a fair share?  How much of your own money should you be allowed to keep?  How fair is it for someone to take money from you and give it directly to another person for their own PERSONAL welfare?  The government is supposed to provide for the common welfare.  Do you know how taxes were supposed to be levied?  The Constitution said that the government could only take taxes directly from the states based on their share of the nation’s population.  It also only allowed for money to be in gold and silver.  Here’s a question, if the federal government only used gold and silver, was only responsible for those activities mandated by the Constitution, and could only tax based on the original schematics, would we be in this mess?  That’s Ron Paul’s point entirely.

I was sickened by Obama’s positive spin on some very dangerous acts.  He wants to do away with the filibuster.  Why?  Because it stops the Leftist agenda.  The fact of the matter is that his ideas are terrible, and that is why he needs a super-majority to win.  Of course, he wants the Dream Act passed immediately so that he can get the Latino vote.  Finally, there’s the takeover of the internet–all to control the information we see.  2084 isn’t too far away.

In another matter, what is with all the executive orders?  How can he wave a pen and make the military run on green energy?  How is he funding it without Congressional approval?  For that matter, when the hell is the Congress going to pass a budget?  Am I the only one that’s sick and tired of not having a budget?

Dear Lord, how many countries are we at war with or about to be at war with?  A thought occurred to me today…if the Founding Fathers could see how we were today, how would they feel about the constant state of war we find ourselves in?  I seriously doubt they would approve of us going to war without Congressional approval.  The fact of the matter is, none of these conflicts are popular enough with the American people where Congressmen would dare vote for a war.  This is why we’ve decided not to have the Constitution get in the way.  And here again, this is Ron Paul’s point.  I just wish he was better at projecting it.  Sadly, I think we are probably lock into some sort of conflict in Iran.  At least we are trying to use sanctions instead of military might (although they are typically ineffective).  As Sun Tzu said, it is best to deal with your enemies first by influence and the last resort is to invade them.

The last point I want to make is this: What is the deal with the lighting?  What, were they going for the “rays of light through a cloud”/God smiling upon Obama?  The only thing missing was a choir singing.  Bah!

Long Live the Constitution!

Florida Debate Results

Posted by Troy on 23rd January 2012 in Current Events, Political

Mitt and Newt squared off in a battle royal (at least in the beginning).  I felt like Santorum and Ron Paul were largely ignored.

Romney – He did okay.  The problem for him is okay is not good enough.  You cannot try to sound eloquent and stammer.  It’s just not going to work.  If you wanna talk like Reagan, you better do a better job of it.

Newt – Newt had another solid performance with a lot of back and forth.  I think that Ron Paul did the best attack against him over him stepping down.  His weakness has been exposed though.  He is going to be attacked constantly about being a lobbyist.  I do think he did a great job turning it around on the Medicare point.

Santorum – He wasn’t given a lot of air time.  He did some good for himself in making the point that Mitt and Newt supported three of the the main policies of Obama.  Unfortunately, he didn’t get enough air time where he could actual make some ground.

Ron Paul – It was another rough night for him.  He didn’t get a lot of airtime, and people don’t often like to hear the truth.  His response to Cuba being a platform for terrorist should have been, “And perhaps if we had been trading with them, they would view us as a valuable trading partner and not want to help the terrorists because we are too important to them.”  He was also hurt on Iran again, despite everything he said being true (that a blockade is an act of war, so why are we shocked that they are threatening these types of things).  I still like him as he is the only one that promotes the Constitution.  He is right about how the Constitution would have prevented all this.

If I had to rank my preferences: Ron Paul, Clint Eastwood (landslide victory), Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and finally Mitt Romney.  Ron Paul is the only one offering any alternative to the policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

Long Live the Constitution!

Debate Results

Posted by Troy on 19th January 2012 in Current Events, Political

I think we’re finally down to the four legitimate choices.

Romney – Still playing prevent defense.  He’s trying to be Ronald Reagan with a bit of flowery speech about the soul of America, but there’s a key difference:  Reagan believed deeply in what he was saying; Romney is saying what he thinks he needs to say to get elected.

Gingrich – Started off strong and fought off attack after attack.  I also liked his step-by-step explanation on the immigration problem.  I think he has a lot of character flaws.  I also think that he would be a big government kind of guy, but he does have a lot of good ideas.  It would be entertaining to see him debate Obama.

Santorum – I just don’t know what it is about this guy.  On the issues, I think he’s fairly solid, but there’s just something about his face that makes me think, “You’re a slimy little bastard.”  I don’t know why that is.  He attacks everyone else.  I guess it’s as though he can”t raise himself up, so he just has to tear the others down.  The more I see him, the less I like him.

Ron Paul – Man, they just ignored him!  What is up with that?  The other three were so busy attacking each other that he just got left out.  I think this debate went better for him.  He’s admitting that he’s got a great message, but he’s not the best messenger, which is good and true.  Again, everything he said is true.

I believe that these four are the most electable.  I think Ron Paul would actually do better in a general election than in the primary.  However, given the nature of everything, I am hoping that the Supreme Court slaps down Obamacare.  It’s going to take a perfect run (maintain control of the House, get 60+ members in the Senate, and win the Presidency) to get rid of Obamacare.  If it stays in place, we will be doomed in short order.

Long Live the Constitution!