Although I greatly admire Ron Paul’s ideas, as I watched the latest RP vs. the FED battle, I was quite disappointed. The FED is gasping for air. They caused the mother of all bubbles, and it’ll finally pop next year. Dr. Paul took over 4 minutes of his precious 5 minutes pontificating about the glory of Austrian economics and the horror of the FED instead of pressing home an attack. Art of War 101: “Cut off his head before waxing eloquent.”
The second part of Ron Paul’s New York Times interview with the Freakonomics blog demonstrates why the man garnered so much support for his GOP primary campaign. Try the following experiment.
First, do an online search for video interviews from President-elect Obama and our current President Bush. Pick one of each to watch. Then, go read the Ron Paul interview with the New York Times.
Your discovery will be that Ron Paul is open, honest, and forthright with his answers compared to the others. That aspect of Ron Paul’s personality is what endeared him to so many, but certainly not enough people.
I don’t care that he is considered too old to run in 2012. He’s also wise beyond his own increasing age. The Republican Party nominated the wrong person, and the American people elected the wrong candidate. I don’t mean to idolize the man. I’ve been fairly critical of him over the past year and a half here at Liberty Maven, but I find myself repeating in my head (and now here) the words on the best homemade rally sign of Ron Paul’s campaign.
Walter E. Williams, one of Liberty Maven’s Liberty Heroes, has a new column in his “A minority View” series, called Evil Concealed by Money, in which he illustrates the inherent “evil” with the tenants of Socialism:
Imagine there’s an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here’s my question to you that I’m almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady’s lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I’m hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.
Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow’s lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I’d say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate’s mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.
Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.
This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one’s fellow man. Helping one’s fellow man in need, by reaching into one’s own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another’s pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.
In Ron Paul’s latest video released on his Congressional site he talks about his questioning of Bernanke yesterday. The video is a bit of a scholastic lecture on our fiat money system. During it, he claims, more than once, that our financial system has collapsed.
Twice in recent days, police officers have gunned down family pets in incidents where the animals posed little or no clear threat to humans. The killings raise serious questions about law enforcement attitudes toward the use of force, law enforcement attitudes toward the general population and the potential for violent confrontations between police and the people they are supposed to protect.
In Park Forest, Illinois, police investigating a burglary entered the yard of the Walker family with a police dog in tow. Princess, the Walker’s German shepherd-pit bull mix, apparently smelled the police canine on the other side of the door and scratched to be let out. Thinking the dog needed to answer a call of nature, the Walkers’ 10-year-old son opened the door, at which point Princess ran to investigate the intruders.
One of the officers promptly shot the dog with his service revolver.
According to the Southtown Star, “Walker said the bleeding dog crawled back into the house, spilling blood everywhere, including on the hands of Walker’s two stunned children.”
Bruce Fein, a laywer who specializes in constitutional and international law, gave what arguably could be considered one of the best speeches at Ron Paul’s Rally For The Republic earlier this year. He also testified at a Congressional hearing regarding the Executive Branch’s (i.e. Bush Administration’s) power-hungry ways. In light of Obama’s (and the Congress’) endorsement of Troubled Asset Relief Act of 2008 (TARA) — in addition to all the financial bailouts to date — Fein wrote an editorial in the Washington Times, railing against such ill advised interventions which he claims “reward political machinations inside the Beltway; distort economic competition by favoring some industries or companies over others; and, kill new jobs or innovation – earmarks of a healthy economy.”
Writing 220 years ago in Federalist 62, James Madison descried incessant changes in the law that altered the economic playing field. Legal instability confers on lobbyists and their clients a preferred position over men and women whose labors are economically productive. Anticipating modern-day Jack Abramoffs, Madison observed that mutability in government financial decrees gives “unreasonable advantage … to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uninformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.”
Fein goes on to illustrate how Madison’s sage words fits today’s situation perfectly. Read the whole article here.
Yesterday, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson published an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times. It was filled with doublespeak, platitudes, lies, and incredible ignorance. Chris Martenson parsed Paulson’s words, paragraph by paragraph, to shed some truth of the situation. Here’s a snippet:
[Paulson writes:]
I have always said that the decline in the housing market is at the root of the economic downturn and our financial market stress. And the economy, as it slows further, threatens to prolong this decline, as well as the stress on our financial institutions and financial markets.
My Comment: Um, no, Hank, sorry, this is not true. Here are some recent quotes from you:
April 20, 2007 — “I don’t see (subprime mortgage market troubles) imposing a serious problem. I think it’s going to be largely contained.”
July 26, 2007 — “I don’t think it [the subprime mess] poses any threat to the overall economy.”
This article by Chris Martenson is quite revealing, even entertaining (if you’re into black comedy). Read the whole thing here.
“You can’t walk around unless you’ve got flak jackets, helmets on all the time, no matter where you are. It’s always struck me it’s almost like a Fellini movie, kind of unreal. The American people are told things are stable and secure, and violence is down. No American would walk outside there without a convoy!” — Chuck Hagel, upon returning from Baghdad
“At long last, the fragile state of Somalia seems to be slowly resurfacing from a searing bout of violence and humanitarian crisis. Interestingly, the light at the end of this decades-long tunnel is not burning at the behest of the United States or the United Nations; rather, it burns because Somali leaders, both within the government and without, have banded together. Frustrated by failed foreign interventions, they are now seeking sustainable Somali-based solutions. The key to success, going forward, is to keep it Somali-led. Further intervention from neighboring Ethiopia or the United States will be ruinous.” — Michael Shank, Communications Director, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, Senior Analyst at Foreign Policy In Focus
Subject: Real “Change” in Iraq
Many people think the U.S. occupation of Iraq has become a non-issue, for two reasons . . .
1. Violence is down
2. The U.S. government signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to continue the occupation
We feel differently. We think the occupation is still an issue, because . . .
* American soldiers continue to die
* The factions in Iraq haven’t reached a settlement, and have no incentive to do so as long as we remain there
* Somalia and Lebanon show that stable societies are grown from within, not engineered from without
* The “agreement” to continue the occupation was signed by a U.S. government that has now been repudiated
* The public legitimacy of the Iraqi government is also highly questionable
* The dollars being spent in Iraq belong in the pockets of struggling U.S. taxpayers
This is why we think the occupation is still an issue. We still want the occupation to end. We want change.
Barack Obama won election by promising change. He distinguished himself from Hillary Clinton and John McCain by having always opposed the Iraq invasion, and by promising to leave Iraq sooner rather than later. Iraq was a key issue to millions of Obama voters. Will they get the change they sought? Consider these points . . .
“What you have announced before … that you will withdraw (US) troops from Iraq (and send them) to Afghanistan is a policy that is doomed to failure,” Zawahiri said in the message made available by the SITE Intelligence Group.
“If you still want to be stubborn about America’s failure in Afghanistan, then remember the fate of (US President George W.) Bush and (Pakistan‘s former president) Pervez Musharraf, and the fate of the Soviets and British before them,” he added.
Do these words have merit? Will Obama’s Afghanistan become the failure leading to his undoing? Perhaps the most compelling aspect of Zawahiri’s prediction is that it will not be an unexplored theory. Obama is going to intervene, and we are going to be able to judge the results of that intervention.
Will Obama’s own style of intervention succeed where Bush’s failed? I have my doubts.
On the phone call Ron Paul said something about it being too early to decide, and indeed, it is too early for him to say publicly what he is going to do in 2012. Who would listen? We are right now celebrating the most popular President-Elect since Andrew Jackson. But it sure isn’t too early for us to say what we want him to do? I am going to do my next blog on why Ron Paul should run for president again. And I would appreciate your thoughts. Maybe he should hear what we think?
Apparently, Ron Paul called to thank Wead for speaking at his rally and Wead asked the golden question: “Will you run again in 2012?” Ron Paul’s answer was it’s too early to say. So, at least for now, we Paul supporters can take comfort in the fact that he hasn’t ruled it out. In fact, as Wead says, it is probably too early to rule it in or out, at least publicly.
I look forward to Wead’s next article discussing the reasons why Ron Paul should run again. We’ll keep you posted. In the meantime check out Wead’s blog and let him know what you think.
If Gary Johnson runs for President, I hope Doug Wead ends up supporting him for my own selfish reasons. I would find it amusing to see a blog article with the title, “Wead For Johnson”, knowing Johnson’s desire for marijuana legalization. Knowing Wead’s conservatism though I’m not sure he would support Johnson.
Liberty Maven
Walter E. Williams, one of Liberty Maven’s 
Loading ...
