Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Ron Paul is the Only One

Ron Paul is the Only One

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+17Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It has become cliché for political pundits to proclaim every four years that the presidential election campaign is the most important in the nation’s history. Given that our economy is on the brink of collapse, we are currently engaged in five wars, and our civil liberties are under attack as never before, next year’s presidential election will truly rank right up there with the most important elections in our country’s history. Accepting that view, there is only one candidate in the race for the White House in 2012 who has what it takes to restore America to its previous greatness. That candidate is Congressman Ron Paul.

No other candidate saw the financial crisis of 2008 coming. As early as 2003, Congressman Paul predicted Federal Reserve and Bush administration policies would lead to the housing bubble and its inevitable collapse. He predicted this based on his understanding of free-market economics and the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

Now, it is true that Newt Gingrich did allude to the corruption of the Federal Reserve in last week’s GOP debate in Ames, Iowa, but he and every other Republican on stage except Ron Paul does not understand the connection between Fed policies and our economic ills. All they can propose are more tax cuts to remedy the situation. Congressman Paul has been preaching about the need to restore sound money to our economy for over 35 years. He recognizes that the destruction of the middle class in America is primarily the result of the price inflation (over 450 percent since 1971) perpetrated on the American people by the Federal Reserve. He knows that spending our way out of our current crisis will not work. He is the only candidate for president who would take a holistic approach to getting our economy back on track, mal-investment liquidation, reining in out of control federal spending, responsible military budgets, and of course sound money.

But, Dr. Paul’s superiority over the other candidates for president doesn’t end with economics. He is far and away the only responsible candidate in the field regarding war and peace. He did not fall for the war propaganda launched by the Bush administration against Saddam Hussein. He voted against giving the president authority to invade Iraq. As president, he would end the eight year war in Iraq and the ten year war in Afghanistan, as well as our wars in Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen.

As was highlighted in the Iowa debate last week he is well read in international affairs. He knows the history of our troublesome relationship with Iran and understands that incendiary remarks and threats toward her are not going to make the world safer. As president, Dr. Paul would end American occupations in countries that surround Iran, thereby lessening tensions and opening the door to peaceful relations. Contrary to the positions of other candidates for president, Ron Paul knows that another war is not in our best interest.

Lastly, no other candidate for president has as strong a record on civil liberties as Congressman Paul. He has been a consistent opponent of Washington’s relentless assault on our civil liberties and constitutional rights. As president, the so-called Patriot Act would be priority one on his chopping block. Paul understands and is alarmed that this legislation has radically expanded the federal government’s ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight; has made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage; has authorized so-called sneak and peek warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person’s home, office, or personal property without that person’s knowledge; and has required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons. The TSA’s grope fest at our airports would also end. As important as civil liberties are, none of the other candidates for president have shown any interest in protecting them.

About Kenn Jacobine

  • RPtwenty12

    Glenn

    So you believe that it is the taxpayers responsibility to pay for people to live in a flood plain? I bought a house and guess what, its not in a flood plain.

    You also believe that if someone barely associated with you writes something racist than you are a racist? Pretty weak argument if you ask me.

    I am always researching candidates, all my research tells me is that you are a fool.

  • RPtwenty12

    Glenn,

    O and a war monger poverty wanting fool at that. But you probable have a hand in Uncle Sam’s pocket. That would make you afraid of a president that doesn’t give handouts.

  • Travis

    @Dr Dreadful

    Returning money to the Federal Government every year is a good thing. The money is in good hands (as the fed represents the people). He does this to remove the burden on taxpayers and set a good example. This is a good thing.

    Now, lets compare that to returning money to a racist group. If he keeps the money, he can use it to positive ends (e.i. promoting liberty). If he were to give it back to the racists, they could use the money to further hate more effectively, or get drunk, or go to the movies or whatever. No matter what they do, they are racists, its better they don’t have the money.

    It is in no way morally dubious to keep the money from the racists while returning money to the budgetary office. Comparing returning money to racists and returning an unused budgetary surplus is absurd at best. Try again please

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Travis, that’s lame. It’s none of Dr Paul’s business what racist groups do with their money. Keeping their donations to prevent them from spending the cash on whatever they wish? Doesn’t sound very libertarian to me.

  • zingzing

    heh. paul fans will excuse anything paul does. he could have tea with the kkk and it would be all good.

  • Arch Conservative

    Glenn has spent an awful lot of time tearing down Ron Paul, a man who actually believes in liberty and the Constitution which is ironic since he’s spent so much time defending the empty suit community organizer from Chicago who’s presided over a 25% rise in unemployment, added 4 trillion to our national debt, and currently has an approval rating of 39%

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Arch,

    Your analysis is concise and spot on. I hope Dr. Paul can count on your support.

  • Gordon Trenchard

    What will Ron Paul supporters do if RP doesn’t get the nomination? I can’t speak for others, but THIS RP supporter will either write him in or stay home!

    And this is one of the reasons why so many people write off Ron Paul and his supporters, because they appear more like a cult than they do like a real movement. If you support liberty and smaller government and support Ron Paul because of that, then why would you not support another candidate with those same objectives if Ron Paul were out of the picture?

    Gordo

  • http://bit.ly/Votocracy Votocracy

    Not happy with all the candidates for President? Try supporting someone who you actually agree with and while you’re at it, chime in on our daily polls! More voices, more choices!

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Gordon,

    The problem is with the title of my article – “Ron Paul is the Only One”. Who are we going to vote for? Bachmann? She loves war and is clueless about economics.

  • Arch Conservative

    “If you support liberty and smaller government and support Ron Paul because of that, then why would you not support another candidate with those same objectives if Ron Paul were out of the picture?”

    No other candidate in the GOP has the same objectives as Ron Paul. For the most part they are all new world, order, globalist neocon freaks. However, due to my intense personal hatred of Barry Sotero, I will support whomever the GOP nominee is.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    So I take it that all the Paulbots here are looking forward to his zero tolerance for abortion except in cases of the health of the mother or for rape?

    So that’s what Paulbots believe in? A woman has a right to decide what goes on with her body…except for when the state says she can’t? That’s Ron Paul – state’s rights over human rights!

  • STM

    I love Ron Paul and his kooky idea of modern politics.

    Fantastic if he got in. I want to see what a modern president looks like in a three-cornered hat.

  • A casual observer

    The war-touting Zionist-controlled media gives no voice to Ron Paul. Now why is that?

  • STM

    Because most of what he says only makes sense if you don’t know anything about America and the global economy work.

    This, it should be pointed out, is what gives America the standard of living it currently enjoys, even while things are going bad for the time being.

    And any hiccup in the global economy means problems for America’s standard of living, as can be witnessed by the still-evident fall out from the GFC in 2008 – which was actually a product of poor or non-existent prudential regulation on the New York and London markets. Of course, if Ron came to power, I suspect there’d be no regulation as this is “unconstitutional”. Small government, in other words. There’s a case for that, though – until it gets too small and becomes in serious danger of disappearing up its own backside in a puff of smoke.

    If Ron ever came to power, America could probably kiss much of what it knows goodbye. A return to the gold standard is one of the things being touted, isn’t it? Does everyone know this was a major cause of the Great Depression and moving away from it opened the door for America’s revival?

    I suppose if you were living in a trailer it wouldn’t make a lot of difference, but it’d be a hell of a shock for everyone else.

    Although, the market for coonskin hats would probably take off like the space shuttle.

  • STM

    I also think Ron has a couple of good ideas and there’s no doubt he’s honest and his heart’s in the right place, but some of the ideas are outdated and have no place in a modern world that is, in effect, largely of America’s making.

    If you were American and worried about where the nation is going and how recent events have impacted on the American public, Ron’s not your man.

    It would be like turkeys voting for thanksgiving.

    Not sure who is your man – or woman – but let’s hope someone comes along between now and next year who can get this wounded beast back on its feet and doing what it does best.

    And lawfully …

  • Franklin D

    Good article, Kenn. I am forwarding it to a lot of folks. Everybody, especially you naysayers, buy Ron’s latest book, LIBERTY DEFINED, read his thoughts on 50 important current issues, and discover just what kind of President Dr. Paul will be. As Kenn so clearly points out, the good doctor is the ONLY candidate with the correct prescription to heal our nation. And, folks, he’s in it to WIN IT. With our help, RON PAUL WILL WIN. That’s what I call REAL HOPE!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Comment #64 – a Ron Paul support complains about “zionist control” of the media. Now why is that?

  • Bill Murphy

    Ron Paul has a bad habit of telling the truth. Any public official admitting that could find himself or herself forced to admit their own betrayal of public trust.

  • Arch Conservative

    “So that’s what Paulbots believe in? A woman has a right to decide what goes on with her body…except for when the state says she can’t?”

    If a woman who is not full term but late in her pregnancy were to deliver her baby and then kill it she would be charged with murder. If on that same day a doctor performed an abortion there would be no crime committed and according to the left nothing amoral has been done.

    Is that what you believe in Glenn?

    It’s either baby or it isn’t. I say it is.

  • Keith Wanless

    I’ve been reading BC for years, and was a fairly frequent writer and commenter here several years ago under a handle rather than my name. I find it odd that Tim, Nick, DocDave, Don, Alex and Charles all posted gushing comments about this article within about 50 minutes of its publication. Are these folks hired guns for Ron Paul, just waiting for an article to be published so they can jump in as cheerleaders for the congressman from Texas? In years of reading BC articles, I’ve never seen such a flash flood of praise for an article as this one received. I find it curious and somewhat suspicious.

    Are all the first-name-only commenters regulars here, or are they one-time drive-by supporters of Ron Paul?

    The only other topic I’ve seen that seems to get as quick a response is the posting of an article calling for some kind of control (registration, waiting period, etc.) of firearms – that gets the Second Amendment supporters out just as quickly and just as vocally.

    I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with comment-baiting, I just find it odd that it seems to have happened in an article with this particular subject.

  • Clavos

    Good call, Keith. They are all Paulbots. The first regular is comment #8.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Is the site’s goal to increase readership or not? If it is then the article achieved that goal. Maybe once those folks got to the site they read more than just this article. I will also say that according to my adsense account on the first day the article was up on Blogcritics it got over 4600 hits. Clearly the key words in the title were “Ron Paul”. Perhaps there are a lot of Americans who are interested in finding out more about the anti-establishment Paul given how pissed off and hungry for honest leadership they are.

  • zingzing

    “Is the site’s goal to increase readership or not?”

    it’s a secondary goal.

  • Clavos

    Secondary to what, zing?

    I didn’t get that memo.

  • ConcernedAmerican

    Awesome article.

    “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds” – Samuel Adams

  • zingzing

    “Secondary to what, zing?”

    ad revenue. readership does have a certain relationship to that, but the material worth of each reader is a mercurial thing. i’m sure there’s some algorithm that decides such a thing, but it’s just someone’s best guess. really, i, a frequent visitor exposed to many ads on this site, should be worth more than the one-time visitors to this thread. i don’t know that i am, in the end, because i never click on ads. i’m sure i don’t have a full grasp on the economics of this site, but i do know that readership is a secondary goal. the real goal is making the money.

  • Purple Pundit

    The article seems incomplete. Great, you like Paul, but how is he going to leapfrog over the establishment?

  • Kenn Jacobine

    If Paul were to win no doubt he would have a mandate from the people. He would appeal directly to them. Also, as commander in chief he would have the power to immediately end the wars. For instance, he could veto spending bills. If Congress persisted he could instruct his departments to not spend the money. In other words, he could employ presidential nullification by not enforcing the laws/programs that Congress passes.

    What is the alternative – more of the same?

  • Purple Pundit

    You are looking way too far ahead. Maybe I should have been more specific. How is Paul going to leapfrog the party establishment? Before Obama 08, who was the last candidate that wasn’t the party’s man from the outset. Maybe Clinton? But when has it happened for the Republicans?

    Do I want more of the same, no. But you need to think big or maybe outside the system for some serious change to take place

  • zingzing

    so, kenn, you’re suggesting paul view his power as absolute?

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Purple,

    Congressman Paul is not running for reelection to the House. In polls done by Harris and Rasmussen he runs very well against Obama. He is in it to win the Republican nomination but if the Republican primary voters are still bent on nominating a neocon, clueless about economics candidate, my guess is that he will run as an independent (not having to worry about being a Republican for his House seat). In that scenario, his ideas are disseminated for the whole next year and as the economy continues to deteriorate they develop even more appeal. As an independent in the general election, he gets a pretty big chunk of the disaffected Republican voters plus huge chunks of independent voters and anti-war liberals. Obama and whoever the Republican is split the rest of the vote. If Romney is the nominee Paul could pull a significant portion of the evangelical vote as well. I think this scenario is quite plausible. With five wars and the economy in depression we live in interesting times. I think a lot of things are possible that were not in 2008. It wouldn’t surprise me if a Democrat ran against Obama – say Hillary?

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Zing,

    The powers I outlined are well within those granted the president under the Constitution. His power would not be absolute in that he would have to stand for reelection in four years.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    No Dem is going to run against Obama. Didn’t work with Carter and Kennedy, and won’t work now. When has an incumbent Pres been defeated in the primaries?

    As to Purp’s question, might it go all the way back to ’64 when Republicans were divided? Seems like Rockefeller would have been establishment candidate before Goldwater knocked him off. Anyone else want to weigh in?

  • zingzing

    kenn: “The powers I outlined are well within those granted the president under the Constitution.”

    sure they are. but obama says to stop prosecuting doma (an obviously unconsitutional law,) and there are people calling for his impeachment upon those grounds. so, things are not so simple.

    this “mandate from the people” rhetoric would be challenged at every move. if not, obama would have easily pushed health care “down america’s throat” without complaint. i don’t understand why paul would be afforded powers that obama wasn’t.

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    84-EB… Franklin Pierce was the only president so far to not get the nomination for a second term by his own party.

    Pres. Pierce was considered one of the worst presidents ever to serve and is credited with hastening the Civil War.

    Barbra Pierce was a direct descendent of Pres. Pierce… of course she was later known after she married as…

    …wait for it!

    Barbara Bush… and who was her son?

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    very interesting. serious thanks for the history lesson, Jet. hen I am sure t

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jet –

    My vote for worst president ever is Woodrow Wilson. Read “The Great Influenza” and you’ll see why. For instance, nearly a million Americans (out of a population of about 100M) died from the H1N1 flu in less than four months, yet he NEVER mentioned the flu epidemic in public – for fear that it might be demoralizing and would hurt the war effort. There’s a lot more – he was in many ways farther to the right than Rick Perry ever thought of being – but I’ll leave it at that.

  • STM

    Glenn, I go for a few, starting with Madison: Allowing himself to be sucked into a war with the British that he could neverwin, and alienating a fair proportion of the citizens of the fledgling US in the process and almost sending it broke;

    Closely followed by the lunacy of LBJ in bumping up the US commitment to Vietnam without thinking of the obvious risks of such a war and they it was waged by the administration.

    Wilson was a bit wishy-washy.

    Nixon, however, for all the good he did on the stuff up by Johnson, certainly blotted his copybook and must feature among the also-rans.

    Speaking of “blotting” … how about Bill Clinton for ruining one of the most successful US presidencies because he couldn’t keep his zipper done up. Sadly, and he must know this too, that is what he’s going to be remembered for.

    And despite not agreeing with his politics, I put Reagan among the front runners in the modern era, along with FDR, especially for his statemanship in a changing, modern world during the ending of the Cold War.

    Someone on BC once told me that their American grandmother kept pictures of FDR and Churchill on the mantlepiece.

    My British grandmother also kept a pic of Roosevelt.

    If that wasn’t one of the most important and pivotal partnerships of modern history, thus putting FDR at the top of the list, I’ll eat not only my hat, but also my coat.

    Harry Truman proved to be a great statesman too.

    And George W.Bush might have called his war on terror something stupid, but let’s give him credit for at least not allowing the US to keep its paper tiger status.

    He deserves a few brickbats for his handling of the Iraq invasion, but the opposite might be in order in ridding the world of a man and a regime that gets equal billing with those of Hitler and Stalin.

    Obama, BTW, is far from the worst IMO. He’s not doing much, granted, but I wonder what he can do – and he did inherit the mother of all messes courtesy of the previous administration and those wonderful, wonderful people on Wall Street.