Topic: Ron Paul
IOWA: Ron Paul IS Electable A look at why Ron Paul should be president of the United States.by John Armstrong
(libertarian)
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Following Ron Paul's Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert, political pundits have used his thoughts on the Civil War to illustrate what a "crackpot" he is. Similarly, his stance on abolishing the IRS and replacing it with nothing is used to show that he has a lot of things that he is "against" but no real plans or proposals to replace the things he derides. "Ron Paul: A Crackpot Without a Plan" would be a succinct way of stating the media's current way of explaining to the general population exactly why it is that Ron Paul isn't electable--especially in a general against a foe as formidable and politically savvy as Hillary Clinton, the woman who has a plan for everything.
Has it ever occurred to any of these experts and organizations that one of the best ways to fix a problem is to simply not create the problem to begin with? This concept may be difficult to grasp for a nation that is constantly bombarded by the Pharmaceutical Corporations’ advertisements which offer some new "plan" to fix what's wrong with us. Ron Paul would be at 70% right now if each of those commercials ended like this:
Ask your doctor if Mentaxia is right for you. Or if you don't want to go the doctor and get a prescription for Mentaxia and pay an exorbitant amount for it caused in part by mass advertisements like this one; just eat right, sleep well, take good nutritional supplements, drink more water, and exercise. By doing this, the underlying cause of the problem this drug treats will likely vanish.
Of course, saying things like this wouldn't be popular although they would be true. It's easier to pop a pill than to do a push up. It's also far more profitable to treat symptoms than it is to cure diseases. Have we become so accustomed to treating symptoms that we've forgotten the value of freedom which preventions and cures offer?
When viewed in this light, it's little wonder that in Hillary Clinton's National Health Care plan, as noted in Bill Maher's rant, the words "nutrition and exercise" are mentioned only once while the word "drugs" is mentioned 14 times. Meanwhile, Ron Paul (a physician) is walking in the mornings, riding his bike in the afternoons, and introducing legislation somewhere in between that would allow the American Public to hear the scientific truth about nutritional supplements (which is currently not allowed by the FDA due to Big Pharma's powerful lobbyists).
Further complicating the matter is the fact that preventing a problem or curing a disease instead of simply treating the symptoms at a national and global level requires skills and traits rarely found in politicians. What are these characteristics? Honesty, the ability to analyze information, the ability to make decisions grounded in fact, the strength of character to rise above political and special interest pressure, and the integrity to take personal responsibility for these decisions instead of blaming other people if the action you chose becomes unpopular.
It is this set of characteristics that explains why GOP nominee Ron Paul will better Hillary Clinton in the general election this November should she capture the Democratic Party's nomination. For an example of significant national importance, one needs look no further than the Iraq War resolution to see how these two candidates demonstrated these qualities or lack thereof.
If you care enough about this election to read this article, you likely already know that Hillary voted for the war when it was a popular idea, and now that it is unpopular she no longer supports it--at least in rhetoric and Iowa Christmas Commercials.
While she claims her stance on this issue hasn't changed in a way only a politician of her caliber could, it certainly stands in contrast to what most reasonable people would have taken her initial vote to mean. Two of the explanations she has used to rationalize the disparity are below.
I have taken responsibility for that vote. It was based on the best assessment that I could make at the time, and it was clearly intended to demonstrate support for going to the United Nations to put inspectors into Iraq.
The Bush administration forced an end to the final round of weapons inspections and invaded prematurely. The administration is responsible for the status of the war, she said, and for being "grossly misinformed" or for having "twisted the intelligence to satisfy a pre-conceived version of the facts."
In true pharmaceutical fashion, she seems to fail to realize that without her vote there could be no "status of war" because there would have been no war. This somehow allows her to take responsibility for the vote but blame the administration for the status of the war as if there is no connection between the two. This makes about as much sense as saying, "I've taken responsibility for having unprotected sex, but it's his fault I'm pregnant."
It wasn't her fault she voted the way she did. It was the bad, bad Republicans who lied to her. "But mom, he said that he loved me." Anyone can "clearly" see that voting to give a war hungry President the authority to use force really means you want him to go to the U.N. to put inspectors into Iraq. Clearly. As clear as the poll numbers showing support for the war as high when she voted for it and low when she "clarified" what that vote really meant.
Unfortunately, Ron Paul has been essentially ostracized from his own party due his vote. The primary reason for this is that uninformed Republicans associate his non support of the War to that of Hillary's and conclude that because he doesn’t support the war in Iraq, he wouldn’t do anything to fight terrorists or bring them to justice.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Based on the exact same "twisted intelligence" that Hillary Clinton heard before voting on the casting a vote on the war resolution that "was based on the best assessment that [she] could make at the time" Ron Paul came up with a completely different diagnosis. Well that’s not entirely true. It was based on what Hillary heard and what he information that he took the responsibility of independently reading and studying before casting his vote. I guess it makes sense that a Doctor would be a good person to ask for a second opinion
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002
QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ
Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won't be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.
1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?
2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?
3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?
4. Is it not true that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?
5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?
6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism?
7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?
8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?
9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?
10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?
11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?
12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?
13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?
14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?
15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?
16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?
17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?
18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?
19. Iraq's alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?
20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?
21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?
22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?
23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?
24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?
25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?
26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?
33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?
34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?
35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?
Given the near clairvoyance Ron Paul shows on this issue raises some questions to ponder.
Although his opinion was very unpopular at the time, is it possible that if he was right about this he could be right about some other things he says that aren't very popular today (Blowback, Monetary issues, Foreign Policy)?
How have the media pundits been successful on linking fighting terrorists to fighting a War in Iraq to the extent that mainstream Republicans truly believe that withdrawing the troops from Iraq is the same thing as surrendering to terrorists--even when decorated military heroes know better?
How is someone with a mind weak enough to be misled with "twisted intelligence" and character shaky enough to be able to claim responsibility in one paragraph only to skirt it in the next the National Front Runner in this election?
How is someone fit to be President if this is the "best decision they can make at the time" on an issue of extreme importance?
Why is Ron Paul the only candidate who thought risking the lives of Americans and spending billions (now trillions) of American tax payer dollars was important enough to actually read and study this issue instead of relying only on the information presented? Does this simple fact not show that he truly holds in his heart and mind the best interest of American citizens and soldiers?
How is a man who had enough integrity to ask questions that everyone else was afraid to ask because of political ramifications and who has a mind strong enough to see the real facts of the situation a long-shot?
How did the general U.S. population reach the point of laziness and apathy that popping pills we can't afford to treat symptoms is so popular that we shun anyone who talks about prevention and cures?
Doesn't it make sense that we should prefer a President smart enough to make decisions based on fact and not blame others for our situation over someone who does whatever is popular and is a good enough politician to make us believe they know what's best for us?
Is someone's political ability really more important to us than his integrity?
Doesn't the difference in the way these two conclusions were reached illustrate that one person makes decisions so they can win votes because she wants to be President while the other makes decisions in a way that proves that he should be President?
And one last question. After really looking at what these two candidates said and did, who's the real "crackpot"?
When the only smear the media can use against you is a word you would likely hear during 3rd grade recess, you might be a person of high character. If you have served ten Congressional terms, and the only thing they have to justify this name calling are statements that you made during a third party run 20 years ago, the belief that the we are losing civil liberties and our national sovereignty, the belief that there should be no IRS and that this is possible if the government stops violating its contract with "we the people", the position that a group of private bankers shouldn't be able to print money out of thin air and loan it with interest to our government, the fact that you didn't return a donation to someone who shares no ideology with you, the fact that your message attracts vocal supporters who hold multifarious beliefs (E. Pluribus Unum) rather than attracting a homogenous group of sheep, or a statement you made about a war that has been over for nearly a century and a half--they may be right, you may be crazy; and you just may be the lunatic we're looking for.
How long will it be until America wakes up and realizes that Dr. Ronald E. Paul is a serious contender? My guess is less than a week.
We've treated the symptoms long enough. It's time we got off our lazy asses, into the voting booths, and actually got well in this country. It's time to follow the advice of a Doctor. Iowa, it starts with you. Let’s get this done.
Your fellow American,
John Armstrong
Like this Article? Thumb it.
Send it to yourself using the link below and then forward it to friends to avoid spam filters.
Comment, it’s fun
As always, unlike the NFL, you have the author's permission to rebroadcast, retransmit, reproduce, or do anything else you'd like with this article to promote the Restoration of our Republic
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 142 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Armstrong only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Armstrong is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: robert m. peters
Date: 2007-12-30 15:15:39
Most seem not to understand just how important the Westphalian Order, which flows out of the 1649 Treaty of Westphalia is. It essentially establishes that states, i.e. sovereign entities, regardless of geographic size, population, economic productivity and relative "importance" are equal and that as such their leaders cannot be removed save by action of the people in those states - NOT by an outside force - and their borders cannot be changed unless the state involved acquesses.
Now, any one with a modicum of knowledge of history knows that the Westphalian Order has not been maintained, but Europeans have always returned to it as they longed to establish peace, order and stability. It has in fact been broken only in those time in which ideological movements have become beligerant and have "transcended" the understanding of "state" for some "noble cause."
The first major breach of the Westphalian Order came with the French Revolution and its ideological views on equality, liberty and brotherhood, a noble cause which masked a bellicose expansionism of Jacobism which reached its height, not under the Reign of Terror, but under Napoleon.
The second major breach of the Westphalian Order, particularly in Central Europe, came with the rise of nationalism which transcended the borders of the then existing states and created the German Empire and Russian Pan-Slavism.
The third major breach of the Westphalian Order was the Wilsonian notion of "making the world safe for democracy" under the cover of which Wilson and his more "pragmatic" European allies undertook to radically rearrange the borders of Europe without the consent of the states whose borders would be rearranged.
The fourth major breach flowed out of the third: the advent of communisim and fascism, ideologies which had neither respect for the state nor of the existing order.
Finally, we come to the cases of Serbia (Kosovo) and Iraq, although we could site other instances. Kosovo has never been an independent state, unlike the other now independent states of former Yugoslavia. It has always been a part of the long existing state of Serbia; thus, the dispositon of Kosovo - autonomous region or independent country - lies solely with the people of Serbia and not with NATO, the UN, the EU or the USA, that is if we respect the Westphalian Order. Saddam was a problem of the people of Iraq. Under the Westphalian Order, nor entity - the U.S., the U.N., NATO - has any rights or obligations there whatsoever.
The Westphalian Order is also very important in American History as well. Each of the original thirteen colonies received by the 1783 Treaty of Paris, a transfer of authority and contract by one sovereign to another, all of the territories, rights and privileges which those colonies, individually and uniquelly held with the Crown. Each of the thirteen colonies is referred to as a "state," i.e. a sovereign, and not as a province or area. States that are sovereign under the Westphalian Order are equal, as you recall from supra, regardless of size, population, economic imporance, etc. When sovereign states meet, they meet in a congress and not in a parliament, noting that the place in which the thirteen colonies meet and continue to meet is called a Congress and not a parliament. Sovergin states remain in contractual relationship with one another, i.e. a social contract as is the U.S. Constitution, until that relationship become detrimental, for whatever reason, to the sovereing - the State. Then, that state, particularly when its people meet in convention which is the concrete articulation of its sovereinty, has every right and obligation to leave that contractual relationship. Thus, under the Westphalian Order, the Cotton States and the Border States, very clearly sovereign entities, had every right to leave the Union which those very states had helped to create. Mr. Lincoln's war against them was not only immoral and unconstitutional but was also a breach of the Westphalian Order. A particular incident within that context is in fact most egregious: the unilateral ripping away of the counties of northwestern Virginia to form West Virgina.
Thus, am I elated that the original poster has included the Westphalian Order in his list. One should note that President Putin in the case of Kosovo has made it quite clear that Russia will uphold the Westphalian Order as it relates to Kosovo. If the United States and the EU rip Kosovo from Serbia without its consent, they will have again broken the Westphalian Order and will have placed themselves among the historical ideologues who have under the cover of a "noble cause" broken the Westphalian Order. War has been the result of every breach of the Westphalian order since 1649!
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2007-12-30 15:43:10
Peters,
You should become an author on this site. You have a readable writing style and seem to be know your history. Having some one like you around could help the cause in a way Thomas Jefferson suggested--enlightening the people.
Alas, the Treaty of Westphalia was highlighted by me, but the words are those of Dr. Paul.
Posted By: robert m. peters
Date: 2007-12-30 19:26:13
Mr. Armstrong,
I must apologize for my typing errors. Some who know me call me a paleo-conservative in the tradition of Dr. Fleming's Chronicles; others have labeled me to be an institutional libertarian in the tradition of Lew Rockwell and von Mises. Within the domain of politics, I label myself, to the extent that labels are valid, as a Jeffersonian Confederate with a strong dose of J.C. Calhoun. I write what I can and when I can for natural rights, common law, a federated and constitutional republic, state sovereignty and sound money. I have yet much to learn, even about the issues which are dear to me! Thank you for your observations.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2007-12-31 03:36:49
Mr. Peters,
I think our typos bother us more than they do other people. I'm usually editing minor points in my articles days and weeks after I first wrote them. In other words--no worries.
I just call myself an individual. One with thick skin from my professional career. But with a heart and mind that work underneath that thick skin. I support your rights as an individual to call yourself whatever you'd like and to do whatever you'd like as long as your doing what you want doesn't interfere with my rights.
Seriously, create an account as an author and throw some of your stuff up. People here are generally nice and the population is finally ready for these ideas. At least the first wave or two is.
If you haven't figured it out this is bigger than a protest movement. And because it is built on rock solid principle and logic, it is going to last.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
