Republicans could learn a lot from Ron Paul

On January 30, 2010, in Uncategorized, by Tom

“Ron Paul” is a four letter word to most Republicans. If you go onto Republican websites like RedState (which is an odd name considering the color red and communist iconography through the years) and you mention any idea that even sounds like anything Ron Paul might say, you are immediately labeled a “paulian” and hundreds [...]

“Ron Paul” is a four letter word to most Republicans. If you go onto Republican websites like RedState (which is an odd name considering the color red and communist iconography through the years) and you mention any idea that even sounds like anything Ron Paul might say, you are immediately labeled a “paulian” and hundreds of members email the moderators to have your account permanently banned. It is that bad.

This is a tragedy. Ron Paul is right about 99% of the issues facing us today. If Republicans would just listen to him and learn from him, they would have the key to capturing all of the votes from the “tea party” movement and all of the people who have given up on voting because they feel like both parties are out to get their money and control their lives. If they actually took on the platform of real republicanism, laissez faire capitalism, and freedom in general, the elections of 2010 and 2012 would be landslide Republican victories.

Don’t believe me? Take a look at this quote from Obama while addressing the GOP caucus:

“I know many of you individually. And the irony, I think, of our political climate right now is that, compared to other countries, the differences between the two major parties on most issues is not as big as it’s represented.”

Republicans aren’t going to win elections by compromising on their principles. Who wants a watered down Democrat when you can have the full blown Socialist running under the DNC banner? Even if a Republican-in-name-only does win an election (GWB) then what do we win as a country? A slow death. The ideas of liberty and individual rights are our keys to avoiding that scenario. Ron Paul is the only main stream politician supporting those ideas.

That being said, it is important to identify the one area where Ron Paul is wrong: Islamic Totalitarianism. When Ron Paul says that terrorists wouldn’t attack us if we would just leave them alone, he is simply incorrect. Islamic Totalitarianism is a real threat, it is spreading all over the world, and if we don’t annihilate those who sponsor, equip, and participate in Islamic Jihad then we will turn ourselves into sitting ducks. When Paul says that Blowback is the main reason for attacks on America (both home and abroad) he is simply ignoring the history of the world. Middle East history, according to Paul, started in 1953 when we installed the puppet government in Iran, which lead to their capturing of the US Embassy while Jimmy Carter was president, and has resulted in the back and forth between America and “terrorists” ever since. Paul insists that we maintain an “Empire” in the middle east and if we’d just leave them alone we’d be at peace. History easily refutes that assertion.

I should also note that America’s response so far to Islamic Totalitarianism has been a giant fail. Most importantly, we haven’t even correctly identified the enemy. We are waging a war on “terror” which is not an enemy but a tactic. We should never have invaded Iraq and we should never have set out to build “democracy” in Afghanistan or Iraq. Those countries have both “democratically” elected Islamic officials who have effectively installed Islamic Theocracy. Isn’t that great? Our young men go over there and fight and die and we end up with two new Irans. When Bush made his “Axis of Evil” speech and he identified all terrorist groups and state sponsors of terrorism he was very close to taking the correct actions in our national self defense. We should have eliminated the government and military of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban (acting government of Afghanistan.) We could have easily done this with small deployments of special forces who would “light” targets which would then be bombed into oblivion with all manner of areal weaponry. For a full discussion of the proper response to 9/11 and the threat of Islamic Totalitarianism, I refer you to “Winning the Unwinnable War” by Elan Journo.

So in summary, when Ron Paul says that we should bring our troops home from the hundreds of worldwide bases that we maintain at great expense, he’s right. When Paul says we shouldn’t participate in nation building, he’s right. When Paul says that we have a centrally controlled economy and the federal reserve steals from us on a daily basis, he’s right. When Paul says that the drug war is simply a means of control and serves only to enrich drug dealers and bureaucrats, he’s right. When Ron Paul talks about the evils of the ability of the President to identify anybody on the planet, civilian or not, as an enemy combatant and strip them of all rights, he’s right. When Ron Paul says that the only way to save our Republic is to return to the ideas of laissez faire Capitalism, he’s right. The only time Ron Paul is wrong is when he denies the actual and historically proven threat of Islamic Totalitarianism. Republicans need to realize this fact and wake up to the things that Ron Paul is saying or we’re all going to find ourselves living under an evil, totalitarian government in the near future.

To get started, here is the State of the Union, according to Ron Paul:


Tagged with:
 

Is Obama purposefully tanking the stock market?

On January 22, 2010, in Uncategorized, by Tom

Just a quick one for today: on Monday when Scott Brown’s Republican win in Mass. was all but a done deal the stock market jumped up over 100 points, presumably because investors realized he would represent the one vote that may be able to halt Obama’s fascist/socialist agenda. However, after losing the election on Tuesday, [...]

Just a quick one for today: on Monday when Scott Brown’s Republican win in Mass. was all but a done deal the stock market jumped up over 100 points, presumably because investors realized he would represent the one vote that may be able to halt Obama’s fascist/socialist agenda.

However, after losing the election on Tuesday, Obama announced a new slew of regulations on banks and private companies that promises to wreak even more havoc on an already over-regulated and over-bailed out industry. Obviously, and predictably, the market has tanked:

Stocks Turn Negative for Year; GE Gains – CNBC

Is it possible that this was on purpose? I mean what would it look like for the Dems if in the same week a Republican got voted into Ted Kennedy’s seat and the stock market had it’s best week since the financial crisis? (Not good.)


 

Objectivist Roundup is up

On January 21, 2010, in Uncategorized, by Tom

The latest Objectivist roundup is posted. Check it out! Tom Utley presents Will Scott Brown’s Election destroy the cause of Liberty? posted at It’s My Blog, saying, “The supermajority is over for the Democrats, but will this victory teach the Republican party wrong message and deliver a blow to the cause of freedom?”

The latest Objectivist roundup is posted. Check it out!

Tom Utley presents Will Scott Brown’s Election destroy the cause of Liberty? posted at It’s My Blog, saying, “The supermajority is over for the Democrats, but will this victory teach the Republican party wrong message and deliver a blow to the cause of freedom?”


 

Will Scott Brown’s Election destroy the cause of Liberty?

On January 20, 2010, in Uncategorized, by Tom

Republicans and Freedom loving people across the internets have been all a buzz for the last 24 hours about the new Senator from MA, Scott Brown, the 41st Republican: A Brown victory is an extremely positive sign. It sends as strong and clear a signal as any election I can remember. The message is: Government [...]

Republicans and Freedom loving people across the internets have been all a buzz for the last 24 hours about the new Senator from MA, Scott Brown, the 41st Republican:

A Brown victory is an extremely positive sign. It sends as strong and clear a signal as any election I can remember. The message is: Government control of people’s lives may prevail everywhere else on earth, but it is still not acceptable in the United States of America.

link: One Reality: Scott Brown, Senator from Massachusetts

While I agree with the sentiments of the above blogger and I hold the same view of the message that was sent by the election yesterday, I just don’t have faith in the Republican party to receive that message, understand what it means, and fundamentally change their platform to reflect the voters’ wishes. As the aforementioned blogger noted:

A Scott Brown win does not mean that all our problems have gone away. There is still no indication that Republicans, after decades of expanding the regulatory welfare state as if they were Democrats, have suddenly decided to do their job – namely, to safeguard individual rights and to begin the enormous task of unclenching the government’s hold on us. It will take a larger cultural shift to thoroughly convince Republicans to be Republicans.

What happened yesterday was simply the logical result of the growing liberty minded movement in this country which is most often labeled the “tea party” but in actuality is showing up in numerous grassroots organizations. The Democrats, unchecked by any constitutional balances for the last year, have proceeded to steamroll over the people of America in every way possible, and it has motivated liberals, conservatives, independents, etc. to stand up and speak out with one very clear message: “get off our backs!” People are starting to realize that it is us individual Americans that should be running our own lives and not the federal government (and not even the state government.) They are coming to the conclusion that the Constitution was written to limit the government to very specific roles and that the last 100 years of politics have eroded and destroyed those limitations. People are starting to act and to vote not for their party, but for their ideas.

The main idea that got Scott Brown elected was: with a 60 seat supermajority, there is no end to the amount of destruction the Democrats can reap. For this reason, even Democrats voted for Scott Brown. This is not the story the GOP is telling and it’s definitely not the story you’ll be hearing on the news. The GOP says that this was a clear rejection of Obama’s “extremism” and his “idealism” and that people want a more practical, realistic approach to solving the nation’s problems. The GOP would have us believe that middle of the road Republicans like Brown were the ultimate rejection of the current Democrats in power and the way of the future to win election after election. This is simply wrong.

Scott Brown won because he represented the only way to stop Obamacare, and this motivated people of all labels and parties to get out and vote for him. Turnout for this election was 54% in a state where the usual senate race only attracts about 40%. In a state where Ted Kennedy (alcoholic, murderer) used to win by 30 points, a Republican won by 5. This didn’t happen because of Brown’s platform full of populism and platitudes, it happened because of Obama’s administration. It happened because the American people have taken the “extremist” and “idealist” position that the government should not be taking over the private industry and that we have to stop such legislation and actions any way we can.

The Republican party better get this message. If they don’t, they will not see a continuation of the current trend, but a split of their party. If the Republicans keep offering up Scott Browns in future, non-emergency elections, we will keep getting Democratic leadership. If the Republicans don’t wake up to the message of the Tea Party movement, and get the government out of our lives in a very big way, and take the “extremist” position that freedom is the only way, then we might as well just vote Democrat, and hope the collapse of the country isn’t a violent one.


Tagged with:
 

Solution to Haiti’s Problems

On January 15, 2010, in Uncategorized, by Tom

Let’s relocate the UN Headquarters to Haiti. Diplomats from around the world could pour their money into the island nation. Most of the UN Members hate the US, and the tropical climate would be much more relaxing and inviting than NYC. It’s a win-win for everybody.

Let’s relocate the UN Headquarters to Haiti. Diplomats from around the world could pour their money into the island nation. Most of the UN Members hate the US, and the tropical climate would be much more relaxing and inviting than NYC. It’s a win-win for everybody.

 

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can
take care of it!