Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Why I Support Ron Paul

Recs

45

August 31, 2011 – Comments (26)

Full post at DavidKretzmann.com 

“What will happen if the dollar collapses? Hyperinflation will then become worldwide. I said, If. I should have said, When. It is very near total collapse already. Once the house of card falls, it will fall very quickly indeed. Money will not be worth the paper it’s printed on.” — Swami Kriyananda

Ron Paul has been predicting this dollar collapse since he was elected to Congress in 1976. In fact, he was motivated to run for Congress after President Richard Nixon disconnected the U.S. Dollar from gold in 1971. Ron Paul’s record speaks for itself. However, don’t take my word for it. 

How can we shift society to understand the importance of liberty?  

The best way to encourage a societal shift to a culture of liberty is to demonstrate a free society on a daily basis. The Free State Project and Southeast Liberty Project are two projects in the liberty-movement dedicated to bringing liberty-minded people together in one geographic location. This can increase activist mobility, effectiveness in changing local policies, etc. This is a good start.

Secondly, one must research economic history to understand that the wealth of society today has come through voluntary economic interactions. When looking at history through this liberty perspective, one will recognize that the chaos in history – weather it be economic panics, wars, or assaults on peaceful individuals – have largely been provoked by government policies.

Really, it’s akin to convincing people that before the War on Drugs, not everyone was shooting up heroin and smoking marijuana. If you suggest repealing the War on Drugs, someone may claim, “Then everyone would be doing heroin and cocaine!” A good response would be, “Is it the War on Drugs today that is keeping you and everyone else in society from doing heroin and cocaine?”

This is a movement that attempts to enlighten people to what individual liberty is through education and practice. We cannot shrink the size of government and end these overseas endeavors if we continue to believe the role of government is to protect us from cradle to grave, attack brown people in another country, and regulate every facet of our lives, businesses, and economy. For this vision of liberty to become a reality, people must individually awaken to the reality that they can take better care of themselves than the government, that they can interact with other human beings without government intervention, and that peace cannot be accomplished through a coercive government empire (such as what the U.S. has in place today).

This is currently a movement of education, practical solutions to reach a high-minded goal, and a dedication to practice the principles of peace, non-aggression, and voluntary cooperation in our daily lives.

Can Ron Paul Compromise and Bring People Together? 

The original Tea Party was organized by Ron Paul supporters in 2007, and it was a clear anti-war and anti-debt endeavor. The modern Tea Party movement inspired by Sarah Palin, etc., is not affiliated with the Ron Paul campaign. In fact, they generally support Herman Cain or other candidates who support more of the status quo.

Ron Paul received over 300 cosponsors – both Republicans and Democrats – for his Audit the Fed bill. Paul has worked with Dennis Kucinich, arguably the most Leftist member in Congress, on legislation to end the U.S. imperialism overseas. Paul currently has a growing amount of Democrat and independent support with the new Blue Republican initiative, which has received encouragement through the Huffington Post.

Ron Paul has proposed this as a very reasonable compromise: cut the militarism overseas (which will save hundreds of billions of dollars annually), and use those funds to tide over people who are reliant on government’s welfare programs. At the same time this is going on, give young people the option to opt out of these government programs. This naturally will result in a society focused on individual responsibility, self-sufficiency, etc. However, it would ensure that the elderly and all others reliant on government programs in the present would receive the care and funds that they need.

This is by far the best compromise I have heard from a presidential contender: cut the foreign spending, take care of people at home, and let people voluntarily opt out of the government programs if they so choose.

Paul has a clear record of reaching out to those who may disagree and coming together on common ground. He has done this despite being laughed at and mocked by Republicans in 2008; consider, also, that very few representatives in Congress have been willing to compromise and come together to the degree Ron Paul has since becoming a U.S. Congressman in 1976.

What about Barack Obama? 

One term of Barack Obama has done enough to show me that he is not any better than Republicans. If he did what he promised on the campaign trail in 2007 – end the war, abolish the PATRIOT Act, etc. – I would consider voting for him. However, his voting record as a Senator and record as President has proven him to be hypocritical of his campaign speak.

Obama extended the PATRIOT Act until 2015, entered the U.S. into more wars, has brought no troops back to U.S. soil, has rapidly expanded spending and debt, hasn’t proposed or supported auditing the Federal Reserve, didn’t close Guantanamo, pushed the DOJ to go after medical marijuana dispensaries, supports the War on Drugs, continues to allow raids on raw milk firms, takes in multi-million dollar donations from corporations, supported the bailouts, etc. There’s nothing he’s done to earn my trust.

In short, I see the two parties as two heads off the same ugly, indefensible, tyrannical monster. Occasionally you’ll get someone like Ron Paul who cares more about principle than party, but it is extremely rare in a field as corrupt as politics.

I’d much rather vote for a Ralph Nader (who’s also worked with Paul), Cynthia McKinney (also worked with Paul), or Chuck Baldwin (worked with Paul). A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

Whether Obama or another Republican (other than Paul) gets elected, the dollar will collapse and the entire system as we know it will come to an unspeakable crash. Both political parties have expanded the wars, violated civil liberties, increased government control of the economy, and ignore the Constitution just about 100% of the time. Thus, it makes little difference to me if Obama or Romney, Bachmann, or Perry are elected. I will vote with my conscience and tell my children and grandchildren I did everything in my power to support Ron Paul and spread the message of liberty.

Will you join me? 

DavidKretzmann.com

26 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 31, 2011 at 7:53 PM, ahemhmm (< 20) wrote:

Couldn't agree more.

Obama has been such a lame duck, who would even want to listen to his promises now?

Ron Paul is the only candidate who talks with a true conviction not motivated by corporate funding or any kind of fundamentalist hype dressed in propaganda slogans of "Yes we can" or "war of the classes" "war against drugs" or "we need the wars to defend freedom!"

 

We all owe him for his endurance and for giving us a choice to make our votes count.

Report this comment
#2) On August 31, 2011 at 10:06 PM, cubanstockpicker (20.54) wrote:

Ron Paul is the thinking mans candidate. Too bad we dont have many of those in the U.S.

Report this comment
#3) On August 31, 2011 at 10:37 PM, catoismymotor (42.68) wrote:

I support Ron Paul because it pi$$es off devoish. :P

 

Report this comment
#4) On August 31, 2011 at 10:44 PM, jyates1959 (< 20) wrote:

Domestic policy Ron Paul is okay......but with international policies like his allows Hitlers to rise and get strong.

Report this comment
#5) On August 31, 2011 at 11:08 PM, SN3165 (< 20) wrote:

Because he might be the only person in Washington who has an understanding of monetary policy. There are politicians out there who actually believe we are still on the gold standard... Seriously.

Report this comment
#6) On August 31, 2011 at 11:48 PM, TMFPencils (99.81) wrote:

jyates1959, Please watch the video included in the article here:  http://davidkretzmann.com/2011/08/why-i-support-ron-paul/  Ron Paul predicted the U.S. would be attacked as a retaliation to an imperialist foreign policy. He predicted it JULY 2001. The guy knows what he talks about when he discusses blowback. Do your research, don't buy into the baloney that Paul is an isolationist.  

Report this comment
#7) On September 01, 2011 at 12:24 AM, tilolite (< 20) wrote:

Ron Paul lost my vote when he said that he would not have supported Civil Rights legislation.  The dude is plain crazy.  He and his fans think that we live in a world of absolute, black and white and no grey area.  He may have some good ideas but overall, just plain crazy which is why he is popular only on the internet.

Report this comment
#8) On September 01, 2011 at 12:27 AM, mhy729 (32.46) wrote:

Ron Paul predicted the U.S. would be attacked as a retaliation to an imperialist foreign policy.

Come on now!...every good, patriotic, Christian, and true American knows that we were attacked because they hate our freedoms!  You must be one of those despicable America-haters.  Go USA!  Rah rah rah!!

Report this comment
#9) On September 01, 2011 at 1:10 AM, BillyTG (29.21) wrote:

Tilolite, like many people who spout nonsense of Ron Paul, you have no idea what you are talking about. Ron Paul is not "against civil rights." There is no other candidate who more strongly believes in individual liberty. He votes no on bills, including the 1964 Civil rights act, to which you're most likely referring, because one way or another they grew government, destroyed individual property rights, or destroyed individual liberty rights.

Do you also believe that those opposing the "Patriot Act" are unpatriotic? Get a clue.

But, like many are saying, Ron Paul is the "thinking mans candidate." If you're unwilling to think critically about these things, you might be better served voting for a mainstream candidate.

 

Report this comment
#10) On September 01, 2011 at 9:20 AM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

tilolite, I think, is a troll.  Anytime "they" want to draw opposition they call him crazy.  He is not and is one of the most honest smartest in politics.  He will have my vote regardless of who wins the ticket for the republicans.  I along with thousands and maybe even millions of people are fed up.  I guess I am crazy.

 

 

Report this comment
#11) On September 01, 2011 at 10:02 AM, leohaas (32.05) wrote:

If he becomes a Libertarian on abortion, maybe I'll vote for him!

Report this comment
#12) On September 01, 2011 at 10:09 AM, BillyTG (29.21) wrote:

Leohaas, he is. 

He is PERSONALLY against abortion. He has stated many times that this belief is his own, and he would not be in favor of any FEDERAL legislation forcing his morality on others. In other words: NO CHANGETO WHAT WE HAVE.

Report this comment
#13) On September 01, 2011 at 10:22 AM, robwg (< 20) wrote:

Even if Ron were to be elected, the system will still collapse unless we clean house in Congress. The only hope for that would be strict term limits, which will never happen, since the existing congress critters will never vote themselves out of a job.

 

Report this comment
#14) On September 01, 2011 at 10:36 AM, BillyTG (29.21) wrote:

Ok, so maybe he's not pure libertarian on abortion, but he at least recognizes differences of opinion, will not federally regulate it, and doesn't even know how to specifically enforce it at a state level since it is so difficult an issue.  In any case, I urge everybody to AVOID VOTING SOCIAL WEDGE ISSUES.  Seriously, the media AND politicians ignore the big, important issues (um, like serious and educated discussion of the economy) in favor of social wedge issues to garner votes.

Report this comment
#15) On September 01, 2011 at 11:00 AM, mhy729 (32.46) wrote:

At what point does a human being become a human being, with his/her killing at the hands of another an act of murder?  If we consider murder to be immoral and justifiably made illegal, where do we draw the line to consider a particular abortion to be a personal moral choice without legal ramifications?

Ron Paul does a good job in pointing out the moral challenges (and legal complexities) presented by abortion (despite the efforts of the overtly "pro-choice" interviewer to discredit/dismiss Paul's position).  Abortion is definitely one of the most intractable moral issues.

Report this comment
#16) On September 01, 2011 at 11:07 AM, mhy729 (32.46) wrote:

Ok, so maybe he's not pure libertarian on abortion

I disagree with this assessment.  Would you ever use the phrase "pure libertarian on murder"?  The question is whether abortion is an act of murder...and I don't see any easy, clean answer to that question, unless you are hardcore on one end or the other on the "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" debate. 

Report this comment
#17) On September 01, 2011 at 11:29 AM, leohaas (32.05) wrote:

Although I agree with you that there are more important issues, abortion is definitely a social wedge issue. Both on the left and on the right, there are large groups that will use it as such. That is reality. Sorry, we cannot avoid it as you urge.

I strongly disagree with your contention that Ron Paul is a Libertarian when it comes to abortion. If you go to his 2012 campaign's web site, and hover over "the ISSUES", you will see that Abortion is the first one. And no, the issues are not listed alphabetically. So to Ron Paul, this is an important issue!

If you click on the link, Ron Paul declares to be in favor of a repealing Roe v. Wade and a "Sanctity of Life Act".  I can understand that some will continue to argue that Roe v. Wade was a judicial overreach. Repealing it would leave abortion law to the States. THAT is the true Libertarian position. But if he wants a "Sanctity of Life Act", he wants to use the Federal Government to make abortion illegal. That is not exactly a Libertarian position. Rather, it is a Conservative position!

But then again, Ron Paul is not running on the Libertarian ticket. He is running on the Republican ticket. And there can be no doubt that almost all voters in the Republican primaries are quite happy with Ron's position on abortion. I have no intention of voting in the primaries, so until a winner is known, I will rest my case. Sorry for interfering in your propaganda blog!

Report this comment
#18) On September 01, 2011 at 12:32 PM, eldemonio (98.87) wrote:

leo,

But if he wants a "Sanctity of Life Act", he wants to use the Federal Government to make abortion illegal. That is not exactly a Libertarian position. Rather, it is a Conservative position!

Where in the Sanctity of Life Act does it make abortion illegal?  I'll go ahead and answer for you - it doesn't call for making abortion illegal.  It leaves legislating or regulating abortion to the states.  Ron is a libertarian, and a consistent one at that.  If you want to disagree - read the act before claiming you know what it says.

For all those pro-lifers who deem abortion the single most important issue in the upcoming election - put your money where your mouth is and protect the unborn future generations by putting a bullet in your head before voting in 2012.

 

Report this comment
#19) On September 01, 2011 at 1:29 PM, BillyTG (29.21) wrote:

For all those pro-lifers who deem abortion the single most important issue in the upcoming election - put your money where your mouth is and protect the unborn future generations by putting a bullet in your head before voting in 2012.

 Please, don't hold back on us, tell you how you really feel! haha

Joking aside, this thread shows exactly why these social wedge issues need to be ignored. 

Pro-life AND pro-choice are ridiculous terms that don't even get to the heart of the matter. Is a pro-choice person ANTI-life? Of course not. Is a pro-life person ANTI-choice? No, that's ridiculous. We all value choice AND life.

So, guess what? My take is that I have strong beliefs and that others have strong beliefs. Who am I (or they) to try to FORCE LEGISLATION on others with differing views? What stunning arrogance politicians have to think they can decide my morality. And, once again, this is another reason to vote for Ron Paul. As President, he won't pass abortion federal legislation, one way or another.

Leohaas, thanks for the info, didn't know it was that big of an issue on his platform---must be trying to round up that conservative vote (he is, afterall, still a politician).

Report this comment
#20) On September 01, 2011 at 1:44 PM, whereaminow (21.31) wrote:

But if he wants a "Sanctity of Life Act", he wants to use the Federal Government to make abortion illegal

And I strongly disagree with RP on that issue.  But like BillyTG above, I could really give two sh*ts about the issues that most voters deem important.  The state preys on the divide and conquer mentality, making abortion one of its favorite issues to scare people into running to the voting booth to cast Rep or Dem, hence these voters unknowingly perpetuate an evil system.

What separates RP from other politicos is that he is the only one that both knows the true evil nature of the welfare/warfare state and has the courage to openly speak against it.   

For that reason alone, I support him, despite having several disagreements.  Of course, I have many other reasons to support him, but we already know those ;)

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#21) On September 01, 2011 at 2:29 PM, eldemonio (98.87) wrote:

Wow, what I wrote comes across pretty harsh. 

I unfairly singled out pro-lifers when in fact pro-choice advocates are just as guilty of writing off candidates based solely on their position regarding this one very divisive issue.

They should shoot themselves in the head as well.

 

Report this comment
#22) On September 01, 2011 at 2:54 PM, BillyTG (29.21) wrote:

I unfairly singled out pro-lifers when in fact pro-choice advocates are just as guilty of writing off candidates based solely on their position regarding this one very divisive issue.

They should shoot themselves in the head as well.

 

Amen to that.   Wait, what?

Report this comment
#23) On September 01, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Lynken (21.94) wrote:

It's hipster to like Ron Paul nowadays.  The problem is that should Ron Paul ever be elected President I'm pretty sure that people would rejoice but then realize that Ron Paul got elected.  Not only does he hold a foreign policy that is counter to the ever-evolving globalization of diplomacy, if you tack on his push for shrinking government down to the level of bickering states and zero regulations then you've actually got a decentralized nation in a world that really needs the major superpowers to be present and capable. 

I know plenty here aren't impressed with any of the GOP field right now.  Bachmann's a no-go in the general election what with the craziness and all, Romney's a no-go in the primary.  Perry's got the best shot of winning the nomination, but his closet is just littered with skeletons not to mention that I'm pretty sure this nation doesn't want a GWB clone in office.  Santorum's a joke,  Gingrich is as well... That's pretty much all she wrote.  It'll boil down to a bout between Romney and Perry.  Perry wins the base, but Romney can win the moderates, more so in the general election.  

Ron Paul has no chance of winning the general election.  Sure, you can cherry pick what you like about his policies, but in the end I don't think the masses are going to elect Ron Paul just because they want to end wars and smoke as much weed as they want.  It's all the other policies that come with the Ron Paul package that are making him DOA.  

Report this comment
#24) On September 01, 2011 at 10:35 PM, ahemhmm (< 20) wrote:

I really don't think that you get the bigger picture. You are worried that the US won't be a strong force internationally, to keep everybody else in line? First of all who would you like to keep in line? Second, the US has never been weaker on a international level than what it is now. We are lucky that North Korea and Iran aren't turning their weapons on us at this point. They certainly know that the US is running on fumes and can not compete in another war.

The Federal Government with Ron Paul as the leader would be much stronger because it wouldn't waste money all over the place. The country would be richer and therefore stronger domestically and internationally.

Report this comment
#25) On September 01, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Lynken (21.94) wrote:

I said nothing about "keeping everybody else in line".  If that's where your thought process goes when you hear the word "superpower" then I would call that a problem.   There's a difference between "keeping everyone in line" and having the ability to respond on a global scale should something arise.  That doesn't mean a paranoia-filled Iran/North Korea premonition either.  I speak of aid, support both financially and via resources if applicapable.   Does military action fall into this?  Of course, but that doesn't mean we use the military as the boot we wear when we go stomping around the world.

The Federal Government with Ron Paul as the leader would be much stronger because it wouldn't waste money all over the place. The country would be richer and therefore stronger domestically and internationally.

This sounds more like wishful talking pointism than rationality.  If Ron Paul truly has his way then the FEDERAL government becomes drastically weaker considering that the STATE-level of government would be the greatest benefitters of his policies.  What we would end up with is 50 states all united by a common currency but little federal oversight when considering budgets and expenditures.  It's almost as if the instability of the European Union and the Euro isn't a lesson anyone wants to learn... 

And what happens on that day when Iran and North Korea see your post and think it's a good idea to actually nuke America and friends?  I for one don't want to see a divided USA at that point simply because an actual war wasn't something a handful of states wanted to be a part of...

Report this comment
#26) On September 02, 2011 at 12:58 PM, ahemhmm (< 20) wrote:

 " What we would end up with is 50 states all united by a common currency but little federal oversight"

You are seeing things rather black and white. Ron Paul wouldn't diminish the Federal Government to practically nothing as you state it, he would hopefully be able to actually reduce it to a more healthy level which is in fact what many others have promised but didn't do.

When something is so out of line as the budget of the Federal Gov you need a radical viewpoint to hopefully achieve the necessary. Don't worry the Fed is not going to shrink to zero overnight. In fact it would be almost a miracle for Ron Paul to get even a fraction of his ideas accomplished as president. As you may have noticed but Presidents don't make the decisions, they rater make suggestions.

And btw, the problem in europe has nothing to do with Federal oversight or a lack thereof,The problem is that the central banking system has created a sense of wealth which is false. It charges interest on every dollar any government spends be it Federal USA or individual states or many individual european governments. Now we are facing the result as the credit is maxed out.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement