1) FORGEIN POLICY
If you hit someone and kill their family, they will hate you and probably hit you back in the future.
That’s what blowback is all about. It seems like such a simple concept, but many of Ron Paul’s opponents for the Presidency vehemently denied its validity.
They proclaim that what our military does abroad has no effect on how the citizens of the world feel towards us. The 9/11 terrorists hated our wealth and freedom so intensely that they sacrificed their lives to prove it? (Of course, our government bombing their countries, propping up their dictators and supplying their enemies with money and weapons had nothing to do with it…)
Instead of securing our borders, we’ve been planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression. Our military is spread thin all across the planet, yet we remain involved in dangerous power plays that unnecessarily put the lives of our soldiers at risk. And we brazenly squandered the wealth of our nation as if there were no tomorrow.
It doesn’t make any sense unless you consider increasing the profits of the military-industrial complex to be in the “national interest”, no matter what the cost to the rest of us may be.
America first. That is what Ron Paul‘s national defense proposal is all about. And with America he means all Americans, not just the elite. If elected President, Ron Paul will continue his efforts to secure our borders, safely bring our troops back home, and finally overhaul the intelligence apparatus in cooperation with intelligence professionals rather than political opportunists.
Ron Paul loves America. He is one of the very few true patriots left in Washington who are actively working on protecting our freedoms, our lives and our dignity.
In these United States of America, many people cannot afford even basic health insurance. They suffer severely under the present system and have to live under the constant fear of not knowing what they will do if they or their loved ones ever fall seriously ill.
But in many cases, insured individuals aren’t much better off either. In comparison to the exorbitant insurance premiums they pay, the medical care they receive is often very poor.
Additionally, due to the government-enforced monopolies of HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations) and pharmaceutical companies, many patients will never even hear about some of the most effective and non-invasive treatment methods. These natural and inexpensive ways of regaining one’s health are being suppressed by the FDA and the medical establishment not because of safety concerns (they’ve been around for hundreds of years), but because they cannot be patented and would therefore cut into the pharmaceutical industry’s profits.
The current system is most definitely broken, and it must eventually be abolished if we want to regain both our health and our freedom.
But Obamacare is the worst possible answer. All it does is perpetuate a flawed system by forcing everyone to become a client of insurance companies, even those who don’t want to or need to participate.
Why should anyone be forced to subsidize the medical care of others? Very few individuals would personally assault their neighbors at gunpoint and steal thousands of dollars to pay for their own medical needs. How could any freedom loving person agree to delegate such criminal acts to the government by supporting a compulsory health insurance system?
There is only one solution that will lead to true health and true freedom: making health care more affordable. Ron Paul believes that only true free market competition will put pressure on the providers and force them to lower their costs to remain in business. Additionally, Ron Paul wants to change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all health care costs from their taxes.
Through these measures and the elimination of government-sponsored health care monopolies a much larger number of people will be able to finally access affordable health care, either by paying for medical insurance or by covering their medical expenses, which are now much lower, out of their own pocket.
In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.
Illegal aliens already receive de-facto free health care. Why can’t poor Americans have the same… not as a right, but as a charitable benefit provided by doctors who feel a personal responsibility for their fellow citizens?
Unfortunately, the current medical monopoly corrupts many doctors by rewarding practices that are not in the patients’ best interest. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in not curing people, but getting them permanently addicted to expensive drugs that have many side effects, thereby requiring additional drugs to suppress those side effects. Many doctors are afraid to speak up and question the system for fear of being ostracized by their peers or even losing their license.
Under a liberated health care system prices would come down and additional options would become available, thereby making health care much more affordable. Moral corruption would give way to true compassion, and many doctors would remember their implicit obligation to provide free medical care to those in need, just like they did in the past.
As a medical doctor, Ron Paul swore the Hippocratic Oath many decades ago. His entire person and career is a monument to the beauty and sanctity of human life. Ron Paul knows that life without health can be very difficult and is not what it was meant to be. He has personally cared for the poor for many years, without asking anything in return.
The government’s original role is to protect our freedoms and restrain itself from causing too much harm. Ron Paul is working to prevent greedy bureaucrats, opportunist politicians and corrupt pharmaceutical companies from having any sort of unhealthy influence over our bodies and minds.
Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government.
Points to consider:
True competition in the delivery of medical care is what is needed, not more government meddling.
Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has introduced legislation to repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.
An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.
To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending.
4)WAR ON DRUGS
Ron Paulopposes the War on Drugs.
On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:
“[...] the federal war on drugs has proven costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime. But if you question policy, you are accused of being pro-drug. That is preposterous. As a physician, father, and grandfather, I abhor drugs. I just know that there is a better way — through local laws, communities, churches, and families — to combat the very serious problem of drug abuse than a massive federal-government bureaucracy.”
Ron Paul works towards the elimination of the inefficient Department of Education, leaving education decisions to be made at the state, local or personal level. Parents should have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.
On November 14, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times interview:
“First, the Constitution does not authorize the Department of Education, and the founders never envisioned the federal government dictating those education policies.
Second, it is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington.
Finally, I think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught, not Washington bureaucrats.
The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that and get those choices back in the hands of the people.”
6) CIVIL LIBERTIES
Would you want to live in a world where everyone knew everything about everyone?
And in case you’re wondering, that’s not where we’re headed. Instead, we’re blindly marching towards a dark future where the government knows everything about you but you know nothing about the government.
Remember the media’s hysterical outcry when Obama’s passport details were illegally accessed during the Democratic primaries in 2008? The fact that the privacy of regular citizens is routinely subjected to much more serious abuse was conveniently ignored.
The “Patriot” Act, which was supposed to fight terrorism, allows the government to snoop on average citizens, obtain nationwide search warrants without local judicial oversight, monitor private Internet usage (that includes our emails and surfing habits), search our homes and offices without our knowledge, and force libraries and bookstores to turn over our reading records.
There is no financial privacy left in this country. Banks have become a one stop shop for overzealous government snoops and other privacy violators, and we’ve been working overtime to impose our paranoid “Know Your Customer” standards on the rest of the world.
Medical privacy has deteriorated in a similar manner. Our medical records are being transcribed in India and insurance companies and other entities have the right to access our medical history any time they choose.
Ron Paul is one of the nation’s foremost defenders of our privacy. He keeps fighting against misguided Know Your Customer rules and the misnamed “Patriot” Act.
Rep. Paul’s interview with Newsmax follows:
Newsmax: What should our relationship be with Israel?
Ron Paul: We should be their friend and their trading partner. They are a democracy and we share many values with them. But we should not be their master. We should not dictate where their borders will be nor should we have veto power over their foreign policy.
This is not just about Israel, by the way, this is about how we should conduct ourselves with other countries around the world.
Newsmax: But Israel is not like other countries. We have a large Jewish population in America. What do you say to those who criticize your policy toward Israel?
Ron Paul: I think that some not only misunderstand the American Constitution and the role we should have in the world, they also misunderstand Zionism. Part of the original idea of Zionism, as I understand it, was that there should be Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance. Today, America doesn’t want anyone to be self-reliant. We want to rule the world and be the saviors of the world and we are going broke in the process.
Newsmax: Some object to your policy of cutting foreign aid to Israel.
Ron Paul: I have objected to all foreign aid. I define foreign aid as taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. We just can’t keep doing this. We don’t have the money anymore.
Stop and consider America’s policy: We give $3 billion a year to Israel in loans; and we give $12 billion or more in assistance to Israel’s self-declared enemies. Some of these are countries that say they will drive Israel into the sea.
Newsmax: What do you say to evangelical Christians who want that aid to continue?
Ron Paul: I say to them that our aid in the region is out of balance and it is wrong. Foreign aid does not help Israel. It is a net disadvantage. I say to them that “the borrower is servant to the lender” and America should never be the master of Israel and its fate. We should be her friend.
In October, 1981, most of the world and most of the Congress voiced outrage over Israel’s attack on Iraq and their nuclear development. I was one of the few who defended her right to make her own decisions on foreign policy and to act in her own self-interest.
Newsmax: What then, if anything, should we do for Israel?
Ron Paul: We should share intelligence for mutually agreed-upon goals. We should honor our pledge to refuse any arms sales that would undermine Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region.
But we should stop interfering with them. We should not announce bargaining positions even before she begins her negotiations. We should not dictate what she can and cannot do. We should stop trying to buy her allegiance. And Israel should stop sacrificing their sovereignty as an independent state to us or anybody else, no matter how well-intentioned.
I am done voting for the lesser of two evils. I will write Ron Paul in if I have to. As for you Iran question, if a foreign country occupied, and then built 30 military bases along the borders in Canada and Mexico would that country be a threat to us or would we be a threat to them? The thing I think you are failing to see or just won't acknowledge is the fact that Obama, Bush, Clinton, Gingrich, Pelosi, Perry, Reid and on an on all work for the same people and it aint me and you.
I admire your dedication to Mr. Paul. But a write in vote for Mr. Paul is a vote for Mr. Obama.
Oh...my eyes and ears are wide open, Mr. Newcomb. I know who I can trust in Washington....not one soul. Including Mr. Paul. The Republican machine dislikes Mr. Paul as much as the Soros Machine fears him. If elected, he will be as ineffective as Mr. Carter even if he has the much coveted "super majority".
"if a foreign country occupied, and then built 30 military bases along the borders in Canada and Mexico would that country be a threat to us or would we be a threat to them?"
If the USA was sponsoring terrorism across the globe, I would say the USA is my enemy. Is the USA poking a sharp stick at Iran at every turn or is Iran building a terrorist state for the purpose of Jewish annihilation? Should Americans ignore an impending holocaust? Auchmadenjahd or whatever the short little terd's name is stated that very action would happen.
If Mr. Paul wants to remove the majority of US military bases around the world, what would that do to our nations unemployment rate? OK. So they stay enlisted. What will they be doing if not policing Americans? Is that what we want? Mr. Obama and the Congress with a 7% approval rating just passed S. 1867. As you know, that essentially made America a militarized state. I guess those troops coming home will put on their brown suits and do manuvers for our protection.
All I want is to be left alone to my own successes and my own failures. If everybody had that attitude, there would be no need for troops around the world. Reality bites and the reality is that America stepped into an eternal war in 1948. The shame of that reality is that America has elected a bunch of p---ies that want to create dialogue with and to coddle the enemy. Mr. Paul wants to hide his head in the sand until it's too late.
I will vote for Dr. Paul if he gets the nomination. Not until then, though.
Junior, they attacked us because we are occupying their land and patroling their neighborhoods. How would we act if China or whoever else came over here and started building military bases? You obviously know nothing about Ron Paul if all you want is to be left alone but wont vote for him in the primary.
You can not force someone who owns a private practice to provide medical care for anyone, just like you cant walk into a grocery store and push a buggy full of groceries out of the store without paying for them. If someone in the medical profession wants to help someone out that needs it then that is there right to do so and most people would do that, not many people will watch someone suffer and not help them, but the government can not force anyone to seek medical care and the government can not force anyone to provide medical care. There is NOTHING free in this world, someone ends up paying for the education any child or person receives. No, no one has a right to a free education it is a previledge and should be treated as such. All public education systems should be turned back over to the individual states and the people within each district should be responsible for their childrens education. By doing this it will warrant a more hands on approach by the parents. I am sure that most communities would not turn away children who happened to be less fortunate than others. Besides, there is no authority granted by the Constitution to allow federal control of the education system and since the federal government has taken over the public education system the quality of education has gone down while the cost has sky rocketed. The parents have to get control of the education. It used to be parents had control of education through local school boards. Today it’s the judicial system and the executive branch of government, the bureaucracy, that controls things, and it would be predictable that the quality would go down. The money goes to the bureaucrats and not to the educational system.
Right now in the city of Washington D.C. we spend $25,000 per student and they’re not doing all that well. We can spend $400 or $500 on a homeschooler in Arkansas, and not that I believe that everyone should be homeschooled, but in comparison they spend $400, $500 dollars and they almost all go to college and there are no guns and no drugs. Defending the educational system even when it’s unconstitutional doesn’t make much sense to me. What if the states didn't have to worry about turning back federal dollars? What if all that money stayed in state and wasn't sent to some inefficient bureaucracy in DC to divide up anyway they see fit? In 2000, the Dept. of Education budget was $33 billion. Today it is $64 billion. Has education improved? Have drop-out rates improved? Have reading or math scores improved? We've doubled the budget- yet the results are worse than ever. What a great example of bureaucracy, hypocrisy and waste. Hey a billion here and a billion there- pretty soon we have some real money at stake! Miss Yvonne, there is nothing free in this world and that includes education and healthcare, I beleive that both need to be reformed, but we must keep in mind that somewhere down the line someone ends up paying and that someone moreoften than not ends up being me and you. I am not saying it could not happen again but I do not see segregation as a viable threat at this time.
All very good points. I beleive that we would be better off and our voices would be heard more if everything were brought to a local (state) level in regards to healthcare and education. There is no need to send our money to a bunch of bureaucrats and have them turn around and send less money back to the state than we sent to them in the first place.
While many of his views I agree with (and certainly his integrity), I just don't think he'd be able to work well with Congress. Whatever your views on Obama, it's hard to deny that a hardliner with veto power would cause even more stagnancy than we have now. Just look at the effects when a party just says "no" every time instead of even considering compromise.
Also, I think the Republican party's candidate choices are hurting their chances of election more than Obama is hurting his.
Ron Paul will receive cooperation from both sides of the isle because he is consitantly adhered to the Constitution. He has a proven record of following the Constitution and following through on what he tells his constituents he is going to do. By his strict adherence to the Constitution it makes him socially liberal and fiscally conservative. By socially liberal, I mean that he beleives the federal government should not intrude on peoples personal lives. Ron Paul beleives that social issues should be left up to the individual states to decide, not the federal government. His fiscally conservative stance will bring people from both sides of the isle together for sure because the whole gridlock in Washington stems from one side not wanting to cut welfare and one side doesn't want to cut warfare. Ron Paul wants to cut both, which makes him a great middle man in negotiations. I agree, the Republican field is full of clowns with the exception of Paul. The thing that is really irritating is seeing how many people, mainly from the baby boomers and older, still are hung up on the Dems vs. Repubs fiasco. If people will follow the money they will see that the same people who finance Gingrich, Romney, Perry, and The Bush's are the same people who finance Obama, Clinton, Gore, Reid, and Pelosi.
Still, I'm not convinced an adherence to the constitution is on every Congressman's mind...
On their mind, but do they actually follow it? Check out ronpaul.com and ronpaul2012.com. Take a few minutes to check out his record and, legislation he has sponsored and cosponsored, also the book "Liberty Defined" is a great read and will give more insight on his positions. If you don't mind me asking, other than the current gridlock, what is one thing about the Federal Government that you can not stand?