">
Posted on 09/16/2007 8:53:29 AM PDT by NapkinUser
When Americans evaluate today's political landscape, most feel something between impotence and disapproval. So, while citizens shake their heads or shrug at the mainstream media's “top tier” presidential candidates, it is extraordinary how many are becoming overjoyed about one lesser covered candidate.
Tens-of-thousands have joined the appropriately named Ron Paul Revolution, joining Meetup.com groups, putting up signs, and crossing states to attend rallies. Congressman Ron Paul's genuine message and untarnished record of promoting individual liberty for everyone, a free-market economy of wealth and abundance, and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace and free trade, has attracted vast support from diverse individuals. Inspired libertarians, Democrats, independents, and previous nonvoters have registered Republican so they can vote for Ron Paul in the primaries.
For those who watch mostly mainstream media sources, Paul is one of the most “searched” humans in cyberspace, has won several straw polls, has been the subject of dozens of blogs, and has an amazing number of entertaining, amateur Youtube.com videos promoting him.
Ron Paul, a medical doctor, worked as a flight surgeon for the U.S. Air Force before becoming an obstetrician. As a 10-term congressman, he has consistently promoted individual rights and kept his oath to defend our Constitution. In 1988, he was the Libertarian Party's nominee for president. As a supporter of Dr. Paul's for more than a decade, I enjoy watching people first learn about this great statesman and appreciate the universal benefits of liberty.
So just what is it that many of us think Ron Paul gets? Why do we want a president who does not want to run our lives nor our economy? How can we make our lives on this planet more peaceful, fairer, greener, and more prosperous? Let me discuss (too) briefly a few important, and recently highlighted, issues.
Our foreign policies have gone well beyond matters of defense. Regardless of whether our intervention in the affairs of other countries is altruistic or self-interest, it is a negative for everyone. Not only do we not have the right, we have created enemies who are now aggressors against us, making us less safe; we have supported those who would oppress many; we have militarized areas of conflict; we have unwisely spent borrowed trillions; we have created opportunity for large-scale graft; many well-intentioned Americans and innocents have been killed or injured and otherwise have had their lives disrupted.
Military is for protection
The only appropriate use of our military is to protect Americans. It is immoral and illegal to order U.S. soldiers into battle for any other reason. If we truly want peace, to be safer, and to not drain the pockets of our children, we should redeploy our military personel back to our shores and waters and trade freely with all nations.
Consumers have enjoyed the benefits of lower prices and better quality in products and services offered by the least regulated industries. Unfortunately, two of our most important services are the most heavily regulated. Public education has innovated little in 50 years and student performance is poorer. Patients find it more and more difficult to access affordable health care.
To provide quality health care to the greatest number of people, the costs for all levels of care need to be less prohibitive, so that near everyone can achieve a level of care to which they are comfortable. This is accomplished by deregulating the industry, re-establishing competition amongst health care insurers and providers, and allowing patients more freedom in their health choices.
Corporations benefit unfairly from favorable legislation that drives out competitors, harming the consumer. There is only one way to end this inequity and to get money and corruption out of politics. Take back the power from politicians by returning government to its constitutional limits.
There is no surer way to have the money you have earned for yourself and your family be used to support that which you do not value and given to those who have not earned it than by allowing the government to tax your income.
They say a frog thrown into a pot of boiling water will immediately jump out, while a frog in a pot of water that is slowly brought to a boil will remain to be cooked. Authoritarian usurpations of our freedoms progresses.
Laws prevent adults from making decisions for themselves every day. They decide when you must use personal protective equipment, what you cannot eat or drink, what you cannot sell and buy, how much you are to get paid for a service, who is not allowed to provide services, and what medical therapies you may choose for yourself.
Right now there are untold numbers of people being imprisoned, without due process, by the U.S government that have not been charged with a crime. The Real ID Act has been passed and soon Americans will have to present their papers to be allowed the privilege to travel domestically. Citizens are spied upon by government officials without legal warrant.
In our often well-intentioned attempt to solve more quickly the few problems suffered by any free society, we have created wider-spread, deeper-rooted and longer-standing ones by burdening ourselves with the heavy fist of government. Many of us think an effective way to advance liberty and enjoy the benefits of a free society is to elect Ron Paul president. So, order a yard sign and a bumper sticker, donate to the campaign, join a local Meetup group, register Republican for the primary, and join the Ron Paul Revolution.
Marc Guttman is an emergency doctor and vice chairman of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut. He lives in East Lyme.
Yeah, who wants the U.S. military to defend America's borders when it can be defending the borders of South Korea and Iraq?
">
Rambling missives declaring war on a tactic do not meet the bar. Same as useless missives put forth for Korea and Vietnam
You seem to think that you can slap the label "nation building" on what's going on over there and then turn off your brain. Theories about this or that being "Wilsonian" have nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of what is going on in Iraq. The reality is that Iraq is a large, rich region which has a power vacuum which we created (rightly or wrongly), and that vacuum will either be filled by something barbaric or something approaching civilization. You, and Paul, wish now to surrender that field of battle to the forces of barbarism. Why? Because you're "tired of" participating.
Again: there is nothing "conservative" about surrendering for no good reason.
But rather you declare war, you go to war, and you win the war only when necessary
You're saying that conservative want to win wars "only when necessary"? and lose wars otherwise? What?
and not to 'stabilize' a region or remove a dictator that may or may not be supportive of actions against another nation not ours.
See, now you've tipped your hand.
For one thing, it's clear you're still talking about whether it was right to invade. Newsflash: the invasion occurred in 2003. Right or wrong, it's a historical event. Get over it. "Whether to invade" is not an issue anymore. We're THERE. The issue is what to do now. Contrary to what you seem to think, just saying "it was wrong to invade" (even if you're right) does not give us a meaningful guide as to what to do now.
Furthermore, you tipped your hand with that oh so subtle "another nation not ours" jazz. (What other nation might that be hmm? Why don't you just come out and say it?) But even if you're too scared to say what you really mean, at least justify what you did say. Saddam Hussein is responsible for no actions against our nation? Um, what about the war we fought against each other in 1991? What about Hussein firing upon our planes throughout the 1990s? What about the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, tracing back to Hussein, who harbored those responsible?
You probably have a bunch of reasons why none of that stuff "counts", in your mind, as actions against our country. This is another thing that is not particularly conservative, playing defense-attorney for and justifying/downplaying the belligerent actions of declared enemies of our country.
True conservatives don't make excuses for declared enemies.
I'd rather confront our enemies outside the United States than inside the United States, thank you.
That non-sequitur is irrelevant to this topic. You don't know what you're talking about.
Heh :) Well done.
Nothing irks me more than people who spout this "tired of the war" crap that haven't been affected by the war one iota other than perhaps having their TV-viewing habits slightly altered.
I find it odd that those who are the most tired of the war and most eager to give up have had nearly nothing to do with the war. They’re just tired of hearing about it. How soft and feeble can one be that the mere mention of sacrifice and struggle makes one weary. Granted, fatigue is real, but shouldn’t it be that those who become fatigued are those who are doing something, not watching it on TV or hearing about it on the radio? We live in strange time when “manly men” can become war weary as a result of being spectators. At least in WWII, the folks on the home front were becoming war weary from sacrifice. Today’s war weary are barely worthy of their own freedom. No wonder a mountebank bozo like Run Paul can appeal to them.
Poor George. Parody is lost on you.
Source?
Which one of those men is running in 2008?
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.