Debating someone over their illogical and blind support of war propaganda fires me up! It's even better when advocates of an interventionist foreign policy call themselves capitalists. It's a contradiction to everything capitalism stands for -- economic freedom; not just for the individual, but for the country adopting free market principles. So what does that mean?
For starters, it means government grants private property rights, an essential liberty required for capitalism to work. After all, capital is anything that can be used to make a profit, and that includes land.
Secondly, it means minimal government intervention in the economy. I say minimal because their should be specific regulations for corporations to prevent corruption and monopolies. Fundamental capitalism encourages competition.
Third, in addition to limited government, it means a low level of overall government spending and taxation. This includes military spending. I urge you not to get confused with defense spending, which is a necessary expense to protect the liberty of our citizens. However, when a country spends trillions of dollars to promote empire expansion across the globe, it does nothing to foster a positive economic environment. In fact, deficit spending in anything, not just military, threatens the very liberty we are told is being preserved by invading Afghanistan.
Allow me to post for you the discussion I had with a group called "American Capitalists" on Facebook. To my initial surprise, the founder of the page responded to my post. Here's the original post:
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
What NOT to do when giving a speech...
I love watching CNN's political coverage because they have this knack of breaking down Barney-style the ins and outs of running a legitimate campaign. Nevermind that CNN is part of the gaggle of liberal media outlets who are in bed with the President. I just like their coverage.
What I was particulary fond of tonight was the analysis after Newt Gingrich's speech in his home state of Georgia, which he won decisively. The name of the analyst slips my mind, but he made a great observation. He said that Gingrich's speech was an example of what not to do when running a campaign. His mistake: portraying himself in a much more signficant light than the voters.
For example, Gingrich noted that he was Speaker of the House during his congressional career. He also noted a slew of other "accomplishments" but failed once to acknowledge the voter as valuable. It was about "I did this" and "I did that".
Barack Obama's campaign did the exact opposite. His message of "Yes We Can" and underlying rhetoric that "we are the change we've been waiting for" gained him the nomination and, eventually, the presidency. We - not I. It's that simple.
So what does this mean for Gingrich? I don't know. Whether it will have any affect on voters will remain to be seen. But it is a very interesting observation. I suppose that's why I so adamantly support Ron Paul. He's a guy that continues to remind me that the message of liberty cannot be spread without me; without others. He seems to truly value my vote and my support. He gives me a reason. A reason to be energized; to type this blog (despite lack of readers); to become enraged at the status quo; to scold American voters for settling for less when we can fight for more. At a time when America's future is threatened, we need a leader; not a puppet. We need a motivator; not a discourager. We need an innovator; not a stagnator. Finally, we need a president; not a clown.
Whoevers message it may be that gets your adrenaline pumping, go out in full force, ready and willing to kick down doors to persuade others about your support for candidate. Let your voice be heard.
What I was particulary fond of tonight was the analysis after Newt Gingrich's speech in his home state of Georgia, which he won decisively. The name of the analyst slips my mind, but he made a great observation. He said that Gingrich's speech was an example of what not to do when running a campaign. His mistake: portraying himself in a much more signficant light than the voters.
For example, Gingrich noted that he was Speaker of the House during his congressional career. He also noted a slew of other "accomplishments" but failed once to acknowledge the voter as valuable. It was about "I did this" and "I did that".
Barack Obama's campaign did the exact opposite. His message of "Yes We Can" and underlying rhetoric that "we are the change we've been waiting for" gained him the nomination and, eventually, the presidency. We - not I. It's that simple.
So what does this mean for Gingrich? I don't know. Whether it will have any affect on voters will remain to be seen. But it is a very interesting observation. I suppose that's why I so adamantly support Ron Paul. He's a guy that continues to remind me that the message of liberty cannot be spread without me; without others. He seems to truly value my vote and my support. He gives me a reason. A reason to be energized; to type this blog (despite lack of readers); to become enraged at the status quo; to scold American voters for settling for less when we can fight for more. At a time when America's future is threatened, we need a leader; not a puppet. We need a motivator; not a discourager. We need an innovator; not a stagnator. Finally, we need a president; not a clown.
Whoevers message it may be that gets your adrenaline pumping, go out in full force, ready and willing to kick down doors to persuade others about your support for candidate. Let your voice be heard.
Why the Republican Party may not win in November
I've heard it repeated over and over again, "Anyone but Obama!" We got that the first time, and by we I mean the intelligent voters who don't fall on deaf ears by hanging on to every single word the media tells them. Is it really possible that mainstream Republicans are as stupid as Democrats make them out to be? It seems so because the "anyone but Obama" platform isn't turning on many voters... at least the ones that matter.
Independents are going to play a key role in this election. One would think the Republicans are focused on getting their vote. However, the Republican Party really has no message that Americans can get behind. I understand the party is upset that Barack Obama is president and they want to defeat him. But isn't every party's objective to regain power? The goal of any party is to gain the power necessary to push your agenda. So the platform "anyone but Obama" doesn't work so well.
There is an inherent flaw by running on the notion of "anyone but Obama". It is the question of if the American people are willing to elect another inexperienced, unqualified candidate to the White House who could end up being much worse for the country. Republicans are, in essence, telling voters to look for the guy who can best beat Obama.
"Don't worry about moral character. Just put a Republican in the White House and we promise everything will get better".
But I ask: What happened to this country that we push character aside just to defeat a sitting president? What will become of this nation when promote electability over character and qualifications?
Let's face the facts, people. The Republican Party must change its message...quickly!!! The Democrats are sitting back and calculating their strategy; comparing the strength of their platform to the Republicans; laughing while doing so. This will be a cake walk for them, and a tragedy for the GOP.
So, I have proposed the following outline for the Republican Party. It doesn't go into great detail, but it shouldn't matter because I believe the talking points are pretty self-explanatory.
1) Energy independence
2) Cut government spending
3) Paying down the national debt
4) Cut taxes for low-income and middle class familes
5) Access to quality healthcare
6) Secure borders
7) Fight terrorism domestically, not abroad
8) End overseas combat operations
I could go on all night, but these are some things the party should highlight. Especially the energy situation. Rising gas prices are in the national spotlight. It's an opportunity for Republicans to highlight their plan for solving the energy 'crisis' while criticizing the Obama administration's attempt to aggressively force alternative energy down our throats. The GOP needs to separate themselves from the Democrats as much as possible. "Anyone but Obama" just doesn't do that.
This is a call to the Republican Party... wake up! If you're serious about winning this election, fine tune your message. Give voters a reason to vote. Not for the Democrats (which is what will happen if nothing is done), but for you! Rally your supporters... Beat the battle drums... If you want to take this country back, let the people use their voice!
Independents are going to play a key role in this election. One would think the Republicans are focused on getting their vote. However, the Republican Party really has no message that Americans can get behind. I understand the party is upset that Barack Obama is president and they want to defeat him. But isn't every party's objective to regain power? The goal of any party is to gain the power necessary to push your agenda. So the platform "anyone but Obama" doesn't work so well.
There is an inherent flaw by running on the notion of "anyone but Obama". It is the question of if the American people are willing to elect another inexperienced, unqualified candidate to the White House who could end up being much worse for the country. Republicans are, in essence, telling voters to look for the guy who can best beat Obama.
"Don't worry about moral character. Just put a Republican in the White House and we promise everything will get better".
But I ask: What happened to this country that we push character aside just to defeat a sitting president? What will become of this nation when promote electability over character and qualifications?
Let's face the facts, people. The Republican Party must change its message...quickly!!! The Democrats are sitting back and calculating their strategy; comparing the strength of their platform to the Republicans; laughing while doing so. This will be a cake walk for them, and a tragedy for the GOP.
So, I have proposed the following outline for the Republican Party. It doesn't go into great detail, but it shouldn't matter because I believe the talking points are pretty self-explanatory.
1) Energy independence
2) Cut government spending
3) Paying down the national debt
4) Cut taxes for low-income and middle class familes
5) Access to quality healthcare
6) Secure borders
7) Fight terrorism domestically, not abroad
8) End overseas combat operations
I could go on all night, but these are some things the party should highlight. Especially the energy situation. Rising gas prices are in the national spotlight. It's an opportunity for Republicans to highlight their plan for solving the energy 'crisis' while criticizing the Obama administration's attempt to aggressively force alternative energy down our throats. The GOP needs to separate themselves from the Democrats as much as possible. "Anyone but Obama" just doesn't do that.
This is a call to the Republican Party... wake up! If you're serious about winning this election, fine tune your message. Give voters a reason to vote. Not for the Democrats (which is what will happen if nothing is done), but for you! Rally your supporters... Beat the battle drums... If you want to take this country back, let the people use their voice!
Friday, March 2, 2012
Free Market and Regulation
"Stop the regulation!" That's what Huffington Post writer Mike Whalen writes in regards to President Obama's claim that he's "approved fewer regulations in the first three years of [his] presidency than [President Bush] did in his" (Whalen, 2012).
In fact, Whalen writes that the Competitive Enterprise Institute found that the president issued 953 regulations in his first three years compared to the previous administration, which only issued 30 (Whalen).
However, Whalen makes the comment that he is not anti-regulation. He says that he "absolutely recognizes its importance in preventing exploitative and dangerous activities..." (Whalen). I agree. The purpose of a regulation should be to prevent corruption, ensuring that businesses do not take advantage of the consumer. But when businesses are required to follow regulations that seem to make no sense, for instance, building and installing a handicap bathroom for disabled employees at a company where disabled workers are restricted from working, a company is coerced to allocate funds for dispensable purposes Also, the strict environmental regulations enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) puts the interests of the minority (environmentalists) ahead of the small business owner.
Don't get me wrong. It is important to protect our environment, especially here in the great state of Michigan, where the Great Lakes, forests, and state parks are a big priority. The problem that arises with regulation is that government tends to over reach its boundaries. Although the intentions may be noble, the results are not.
How can our government help small businesses AND protect the environment? For one, a carefully balanced ideology of economic and environmental policies must be emphasized. No economic policies should allow the willful and malicious destruction of our environment. Having said that, any environmental regulations should be measured by the potential strain they place on small businesses.
My explanation may come across as confusing, but it's really not. Simply, the government should not be involved with enforcing environmental regulations. That responsibility lies on the shoulders of private sector companies and organizations to find free-market solutions to any environmental problems. In accordance to this philosophy, the EPA should be eliminated.
As for economic regulations, the sole purpose of federal government interference in the free market is to prevent monopolies. Monopolies destroy the capitalist tradition of competition. Without it, consumers don't have a choice, and always get stuck paying high prices for common items. Competition works best because the market (consumers) will dictate which companies fail and which succeed.
Additionally, excessive regulation of the economy does not bode well for small businesses. Large corporations usually have the money to adhere to federal regulations, whereas small businesses don't. By enforcing redundant regulations, the government unconsciously creates monopolies. Also, when a smaller company cannot comply with certain regulations, penalties occur through fines, taxes, or both.
Since I'm on the topic of government involvement in the economy, there is another, much less publicized means of negatively affecting American industries. It's called a subsidy. A subsidy is a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like. Many of you may believe there generally is nothing wrong with subsidizing a hurting industry, say, the auto industry. But what many of you may fail to realize is a subsidy is, in essence, the government choosing a specific industry over another. Basically, picking winners and losers. That's why the term "too big to fail" gets tossed around quite a bit in the media. And that's exactly what happened with GM.
The auto bailout was probably one of the largest "subsidies", along with the Wall Street bailout, ever paid out by the government. Essentially, I see a subsidy as a bailout because an industry that needs government support to stay afloat deserves not to. Despite my adamant (un)support of Republican candidate Mitt Romney, he got it right when he said that GM should've gone through a "managed bankruptcy". The free market had spoken. However, the government undermined the market and decided to prop them up.
The reason why GM struggled is due to poor management. The company did nothing to adjust to global competition, continued to fold to UAW demands -- which required higher wages for its employees -- and subsequently, had inflated prices on their vehicles due to inflated wages within the company. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay $30,000+ for a new truck, when I could get a Toyota for much cheaper. GM should've been allowed to fail, go through bankruptcy, and reorganize and come out stronger because of it.
The same goes for the Wall Street banks. But many argue that there wasn't enough regulation within the banking system causing the near collapse. Maybe so, but yet again, the government intervened and "subsidized" a failing industry. Would it have created an economic collapse? It's possible. But smaller, more viable banks would've picked up the slack, effectively replacing the fallen financial institutions.
Excessive, overbearing and extraneous regulations do nothing but hurt small businesses, while the larger multi-billion dollar corporations and their CEOs continue to rake in profits at their expense. The Congress and the Obama administration need to begin the process of rolling back the regulations that weigh down the American economy so we can start restoring the American dream. Unless we do so, the future prosperity of the United Sates is exceedingly threatened.
REFERENCES:
Whalen, Mike. Stop the Regulation! March 1, 2012. Retrieved Mar 2, 2012 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/job-creators-alliance/obama-regulations_b_1307849.html
In fact, Whalen writes that the Competitive Enterprise Institute found that the president issued 953 regulations in his first three years compared to the previous administration, which only issued 30 (Whalen).
However, Whalen makes the comment that he is not anti-regulation. He says that he "absolutely recognizes its importance in preventing exploitative and dangerous activities..." (Whalen). I agree. The purpose of a regulation should be to prevent corruption, ensuring that businesses do not take advantage of the consumer. But when businesses are required to follow regulations that seem to make no sense, for instance, building and installing a handicap bathroom for disabled employees at a company where disabled workers are restricted from working, a company is coerced to allocate funds for dispensable purposes Also, the strict environmental regulations enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) puts the interests of the minority (environmentalists) ahead of the small business owner.
Don't get me wrong. It is important to protect our environment, especially here in the great state of Michigan, where the Great Lakes, forests, and state parks are a big priority. The problem that arises with regulation is that government tends to over reach its boundaries. Although the intentions may be noble, the results are not.
How can our government help small businesses AND protect the environment? For one, a carefully balanced ideology of economic and environmental policies must be emphasized. No economic policies should allow the willful and malicious destruction of our environment. Having said that, any environmental regulations should be measured by the potential strain they place on small businesses.
As for economic regulations, the sole purpose of federal government interference in the free market is to prevent monopolies. Monopolies destroy the capitalist tradition of competition. Without it, consumers don't have a choice, and always get stuck paying high prices for common items. Competition works best because the market (consumers) will dictate which companies fail and which succeed.
Additionally, excessive regulation of the economy does not bode well for small businesses. Large corporations usually have the money to adhere to federal regulations, whereas small businesses don't. By enforcing redundant regulations, the government unconsciously creates monopolies. Also, when a smaller company cannot comply with certain regulations, penalties occur through fines, taxes, or both.
Since I'm on the topic of government involvement in the economy, there is another, much less publicized means of negatively affecting American industries. It's called a subsidy. A subsidy is a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like. Many of you may believe there generally is nothing wrong with subsidizing a hurting industry, say, the auto industry. But what many of you may fail to realize is a subsidy is, in essence, the government choosing a specific industry over another. Basically, picking winners and losers. That's why the term "too big to fail" gets tossed around quite a bit in the media. And that's exactly what happened with GM.
The reason why GM struggled is due to poor management. The company did nothing to adjust to global competition, continued to fold to UAW demands -- which required higher wages for its employees -- and subsequently, had inflated prices on their vehicles due to inflated wages within the company. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay $30,000+ for a new truck, when I could get a Toyota for much cheaper. GM should've been allowed to fail, go through bankruptcy, and reorganize and come out stronger because of it.
Excessive, overbearing and extraneous regulations do nothing but hurt small businesses, while the larger multi-billion dollar corporations and their CEOs continue to rake in profits at their expense. The Congress and the Obama administration need to begin the process of rolling back the regulations that weigh down the American economy so we can start restoring the American dream. Unless we do so, the future prosperity of the United Sates is exceedingly threatened.
REFERENCES:
Whalen, Mike. Stop the Regulation! March 1, 2012. Retrieved Mar 2, 2012 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/job-creators-alliance/obama-regulations_b_1307849.html
Solution to rising gas prices
So, gas prices are at $3.99/gallon -- at least here in Michigan. Woe is us. The question now is what do we (and by we I mean our 'leaders') about it? Does the government take control of the gas companies and force them to lower prices? Or do we allow them the freedom to manipulate the public?
Do we drill for more oil and use it domestically instead of selling it to China and India? Or do we restrict drilling and force Americans to pay higher prices at the pump in order to push alternative energy? Well, the Obama administration and the Department of Energy are doing exactly that.
The website Politico published an article stating the Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is not "working to lower gasoline prices directly", all in an effort to promote energy alternatives like bio fuels and electric cars (Guillen, 2012).
Overall, I have no problem with alternative energy. However, when a government institutes a policy of 'shut up and deal with it', I have something to fuss about.
Allowing gas prices to rise in an economic recession to promote an agenda is political suicide. I don't care what political beliefs you hold, no one wants to pay $5/gallon, which is what some experts say they could hit in the summer.
If you argue otherwise... well, I encourage you to ride your bike to work because you'll go broke driving.
In fact, rising gas prices will create a domino effect everywhere else. For example, delivery companies will need to raise shipping costs in order to make up for the losses paying for diesel. In turn, when retail stores pay more for shipping costs, they must raise prices to prevent a loss of profit. This is evident in rising food prices. Those who are hurt the most are not the businesses, although they will suffer as a result. Consumers, like me and you, suffer. When we suffer, businesses suffer. And when businesses suffer, the economy does.
It's like clockwork. Each gear sets in motion another, which then sets in motion another, and so forth. Gas prices are just the beginning. But we can alleviate the pressure if we as citizens petition our government and our elected officials to do the following:
1) Reduce restrictions on offshore drilling so as to become energy independent. No more foreign oil!
2) Government needs to provide incentives for oil companies to lower gas prices. This would work hand-in-hand if condition #1 is agreed to.
3) Stop the selling of domestic oil to foreign countries until our energy problem has been solved. We need all the oil we can get.
4) Finally, the government should create the environment where private companies can research alternative sources of energy, free from government control and manipulation. Green energy is fine, as long as the free market produces it.
These are just simple solutions to an ever-increasing problem. Something needs to be done immediately, and the list above is one place we can start.
REFERENCES:
Guillen, Alex. Chu: DOE working to wean U.S. off oil, not lower prices. February 28,2012. Retrieved March 2, 2012 from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73408.html
Do we drill for more oil and use it domestically instead of selling it to China and India? Or do we restrict drilling and force Americans to pay higher prices at the pump in order to push alternative energy? Well, the Obama administration and the Department of Energy are doing exactly that.
The website Politico published an article stating the Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is not "working to lower gasoline prices directly", all in an effort to promote energy alternatives like bio fuels and electric cars (Guillen, 2012).
Overall, I have no problem with alternative energy. However, when a government institutes a policy of 'shut up and deal with it', I have something to fuss about.
Allowing gas prices to rise in an economic recession to promote an agenda is political suicide. I don't care what political beliefs you hold, no one wants to pay $5/gallon, which is what some experts say they could hit in the summer.
If you argue otherwise... well, I encourage you to ride your bike to work because you'll go broke driving.
In fact, rising gas prices will create a domino effect everywhere else. For example, delivery companies will need to raise shipping costs in order to make up for the losses paying for diesel. In turn, when retail stores pay more for shipping costs, they must raise prices to prevent a loss of profit. This is evident in rising food prices. Those who are hurt the most are not the businesses, although they will suffer as a result. Consumers, like me and you, suffer. When we suffer, businesses suffer. And when businesses suffer, the economy does.
It's like clockwork. Each gear sets in motion another, which then sets in motion another, and so forth. Gas prices are just the beginning. But we can alleviate the pressure if we as citizens petition our government and our elected officials to do the following:
1) Reduce restrictions on offshore drilling so as to become energy independent. No more foreign oil!
2) Government needs to provide incentives for oil companies to lower gas prices. This would work hand-in-hand if condition #1 is agreed to.
3) Stop the selling of domestic oil to foreign countries until our energy problem has been solved. We need all the oil we can get.
4) Finally, the government should create the environment where private companies can research alternative sources of energy, free from government control and manipulation. Green energy is fine, as long as the free market produces it.
These are just simple solutions to an ever-increasing problem. Something needs to be done immediately, and the list above is one place we can start.
REFERENCES:
Guillen, Alex. Chu: DOE working to wean U.S. off oil, not lower prices. February 28,2012. Retrieved March 2, 2012 from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73408.html
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Why I support Ron Paul
There's a common joke that goes around which asks, "How can you tell if a politician is lying?" The answer is comical, yet true a majority of the time: "Because their lips are moving".
This year's GOP primary battle is no different. Candidates like Mitt Romney whose flip-flops on practically every issue has been documented; Rick Santorum who claims he's a fiscal conservative but has voted five times to raise the debt ceiling (PoliGu.com). As for Newt Gingrich, well, don't get me started. There's a reason he was almost booted out of Congress by his own party due to facing trial for ethics charges. Also, how can you not call someone a hypocrite for pushing to impeach former President Clinton for infidelity while committing the act himself. Simply put, none of these guys can be trusted.
The only man I trust running for president this election cycle is Ron Paul. There are several reasons, but I will provide my top three, maybe five if I get on a roll. His record speaks itself. In in his twelve terms as a Congressman, he never stood against his principles and has ALWAYS voted to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Here are my top three:
1) He wants to bring U.S. troops home and end the senseless, undeclared war in Afghanistan. He insists our country would be much safer if our troops were guarding the southern border instead of the undefined border of Afghanistan/Pakistan. The money our government would save is in the trillions. This is essential if we ever plan on paying down our debt. In addition, he wants to disband the American embassy in Iraq which costs millions of dollars to maintain. Here's a video clip which will define his views on foreign policy:
2) He's the only candidate who's budget proposal would actually CUT government spending and reduce our national debt by two trillion dollars. In his first year, as he mentioned in several debates and speeches on the campaign trail, he plans to cut spending by one trillion dollars. Here's a clip (it's kind of long, but it does a great job of explaining Ron Paul's budget plan.
3) He wants to abolish the unconstitutional Federal Reserve system. The Fed was created by bankers, run by bankers, and does not answer to the government. If you want to view a five part documentary on YouTube about it, please look up Zietgeist - The Federal Reserve. Remember, there are five parts, but you will be surprised about how much you didn't know about it.
See... I told you there was a possibility I was going to get on a roll.
4) He wants to repeal the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the Patriot Act, which literally destroys the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights which says:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The NDAA gives the president unprecedented power to detain American citizens indefinitely without a trial if that citizen is suspected of association with terrorist organizations. Also, the bill states no specific charges need to be given. This is a dangerous bill and a complete violation of our civil rights. It's absurd to think our elected representatives voted for this!!!
5) He doesn't flip-flop! In his 12 terms as a congressman, he has never voted to raise taxes; he has never voted for wasteful government spending; owns an A+ rating from the NRA throughout his political career; has always upheld the principles of the Constitution even if it was unpopular at the time.
There are many other reasons why I support Ron Paul. But these are my top five. My wish is that after reading this, I have at least educated you on some of Dr. Paul's positions. For further information, please visit his website, http://www.ronpaul2012.com/.
References: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Pennsylvania/Rick_Santorum/Views/Debt,_Deficit,_Spending,_and_the_Size_of_Government/
This year's GOP primary battle is no different. Candidates like Mitt Romney whose flip-flops on practically every issue has been documented; Rick Santorum who claims he's a fiscal conservative but has voted five times to raise the debt ceiling (PoliGu.com). As for Newt Gingrich, well, don't get me started. There's a reason he was almost booted out of Congress by his own party due to facing trial for ethics charges. Also, how can you not call someone a hypocrite for pushing to impeach former President Clinton for infidelity while committing the act himself. Simply put, none of these guys can be trusted.
The only man I trust running for president this election cycle is Ron Paul. There are several reasons, but I will provide my top three, maybe five if I get on a roll. His record speaks itself. In in his twelve terms as a Congressman, he never stood against his principles and has ALWAYS voted to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Here are my top three:
1) He wants to bring U.S. troops home and end the senseless, undeclared war in Afghanistan. He insists our country would be much safer if our troops were guarding the southern border instead of the undefined border of Afghanistan/Pakistan. The money our government would save is in the trillions. This is essential if we ever plan on paying down our debt. In addition, he wants to disband the American embassy in Iraq which costs millions of dollars to maintain. Here's a video clip which will define his views on foreign policy:
2) He's the only candidate who's budget proposal would actually CUT government spending and reduce our national debt by two trillion dollars. In his first year, as he mentioned in several debates and speeches on the campaign trail, he plans to cut spending by one trillion dollars. Here's a clip (it's kind of long, but it does a great job of explaining Ron Paul's budget plan.
3) He wants to abolish the unconstitutional Federal Reserve system. The Fed was created by bankers, run by bankers, and does not answer to the government. If you want to view a five part documentary on YouTube about it, please look up Zietgeist - The Federal Reserve. Remember, there are five parts, but you will be surprised about how much you didn't know about it.
See... I told you there was a possibility I was going to get on a roll.
4) He wants to repeal the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the Patriot Act, which literally destroys the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights which says:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The NDAA gives the president unprecedented power to detain American citizens indefinitely without a trial if that citizen is suspected of association with terrorist organizations. Also, the bill states no specific charges need to be given. This is a dangerous bill and a complete violation of our civil rights. It's absurd to think our elected representatives voted for this!!!
5) He doesn't flip-flop! In his 12 terms as a congressman, he has never voted to raise taxes; he has never voted for wasteful government spending; owns an A+ rating from the NRA throughout his political career; has always upheld the principles of the Constitution even if it was unpopular at the time.
There are many other reasons why I support Ron Paul. But these are my top five. My wish is that after reading this, I have at least educated you on some of Dr. Paul's positions. For further information, please visit his website, http://www.ronpaul2012.com/.
References: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Pennsylvania/Rick_Santorum/Views/Debt,_Deficit,_Spending,_and_the_Size_of_Government/
Monday, February 6, 2012
Religion and politics
One of the many things that bother me about modern day politics is the inclusion of religion as a means to sway voters. But it's not just any religion. Christianity has monopolized the public policy debate in today's political arena. Why don't we hear anything from Muslims? Or Buddhists? Or Hindus? Those faiths are just as legitimate to its members as Christianity is to me. To prohibit other religions from contributing their ideas and beliefs to the debate is a violation of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Get my point? If not, then it means Judeo-Christian values shouldn't be the only values the American public embrace. What makes Americans unique are their diversity in racial and ethnic backgrounds, opinions, and religious beliefs.
Another matter of concern is how politicians use faith to get votes. It's sickening. "Vote for me because I believe in God." I intentionally stay away from candidates who use faith as a crutch. To me, those candidates are telling me that they have no legitimate ideas worth voting for. Also, I find it insulting. Christians should be able to vote for whoever they want according to their own conviction! You don't have to tell me who to vote for... I can make my own decision. That's one very large reason I strongly dislike James Dobson and his "Focus on the Family" organization. He has a good message about wanting to maintain a strong family unit in today's troubled world. I like that message. What I don't like is when he uses his influence to suggest Christians vote Republican. It's not Christianity's job to endorse political parties. Many would argue that Jesus would want us to. On the contrary, I think Jesus made it quite clear in Mark 16:15 what he wants us to do: "And he told them, 'Go into the world and preach the Good News to everyone, everywhere.'" I didn't see anything where it mentions changing public opinion by forcefully dictating where the political winds should blow. In fact, Jesus would've wanted nothing to do with politics.
In Biblical days, politics played a major role in pagan religions such as the worship of Baal-berith. Governments often went so far as to hire temple prostitutes to bring in additional money. In many cases a religious system was set up and supported by the government so the offerings could fund community projects. Religion became a profit-making business (1). That's exactly why these candidates play the faith card: money -- which they then use to obtain power. If money doesn't do it, there are alternatives.
Remember Absalom, David's son who plotted against his father to take away the throne?
Now, there are going to be those out there who will throw a temper-tantrum about what I just wrote, demanding why I would denounce Christianity and its purpose in this world. For starters, I'm not denouncing Christianity. I am, however, questioning its modern day purpose in this world. When Jesus gave us the Great Commission to "make disciples of the nations", he didn't intend it by means of a worldly political system, one in which the ruler of this earth -- Satan -- has control. In fact, I will go so far as to say that Christianity in politics is nothing but fraudulent. It's merely another interest group bent on gaining and keeping power, all in order to engineer social reforms. This being the case, Jesus would have replied "yes" instead of "Get out of here Satan" (Matthew 4:10) when offered the nations of the world and all their glory. But seeing as he didn't, Christianity shouldn't be exerting its will in public policy.
Christians are supposed to change society by the way they live; by example. Not by participating in a battle of political ideology. I know good Christians that vote Democrat because they claim Democrats do more to take care of the poor in the country and around the world. I know good Christians that vote Republican because of important social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research. I know good Christians who vote as independents, focusing not on what religious political organizations like "Focus on the Family" tells them, but on the convictions God has put in their heart. Am I saying Christians shouldn't vote? No. I believe it's important as a citizen of this country to ensure the well-being of all Americans today and in the future.
What I am trying to say is that Christians can be loyal to both God and their government, but must not confuse the two. The church and the state are concerned with two entirely different spheres -- the spiritual and the physical -- and thus complement each other but do not work together (3). In essence, keep religion out of politics and always remember that Jesus was a social activist, not a political one.
References:
1, 2, & 3 are all fragments of the verse commentary found in my NLT translation of my Bible. The translations are on pages 369 (1); 484 (2); 1792 (3).
Another matter of concern is how politicians use faith to get votes. It's sickening. "Vote for me because I believe in God." I intentionally stay away from candidates who use faith as a crutch. To me, those candidates are telling me that they have no legitimate ideas worth voting for. Also, I find it insulting. Christians should be able to vote for whoever they want according to their own conviction! You don't have to tell me who to vote for... I can make my own decision. That's one very large reason I strongly dislike James Dobson and his "Focus on the Family" organization. He has a good message about wanting to maintain a strong family unit in today's troubled world. I like that message. What I don't like is when he uses his influence to suggest Christians vote Republican. It's not Christianity's job to endorse political parties. Many would argue that Jesus would want us to. On the contrary, I think Jesus made it quite clear in Mark 16:15 what he wants us to do: "And he told them, 'Go into the world and preach the Good News to everyone, everywhere.'" I didn't see anything where it mentions changing public opinion by forcefully dictating where the political winds should blow. In fact, Jesus would've wanted nothing to do with politics.
In Biblical days, politics played a major role in pagan religions such as the worship of Baal-berith. Governments often went so far as to hire temple prostitutes to bring in additional money. In many cases a religious system was set up and supported by the government so the offerings could fund community projects. Religion became a profit-making business (1). That's exactly why these candidates play the faith card: money -- which they then use to obtain power. If money doesn't do it, there are alternatives.
Remember Absalom, David's son who plotted against his father to take away the throne?
And when people tried to bow before him, Absalom wouldn't let them. Instead, he took them by the hand and embraced them. So in this way, Absalom stole the hearts of all the people of Israel -- 2 Samuel 15: 5-6Absalom's political strategy was to steal the hearts of the people with his good looks, grand entrances, apparent concern for justice, and friendly embraces. Many were fooled and switched their allegiance. Later, however, Absalom proved to be an evil ruler (2). So can we really trust our politicians? I think not. Not even the one who claims to "love God".
Now, there are going to be those out there who will throw a temper-tantrum about what I just wrote, demanding why I would denounce Christianity and its purpose in this world. For starters, I'm not denouncing Christianity. I am, however, questioning its modern day purpose in this world. When Jesus gave us the Great Commission to "make disciples of the nations", he didn't intend it by means of a worldly political system, one in which the ruler of this earth -- Satan -- has control. In fact, I will go so far as to say that Christianity in politics is nothing but fraudulent. It's merely another interest group bent on gaining and keeping power, all in order to engineer social reforms. This being the case, Jesus would have replied "yes" instead of "Get out of here Satan" (Matthew 4:10) when offered the nations of the world and all their glory. But seeing as he didn't, Christianity shouldn't be exerting its will in public policy.
Christians are supposed to change society by the way they live; by example. Not by participating in a battle of political ideology. I know good Christians that vote Democrat because they claim Democrats do more to take care of the poor in the country and around the world. I know good Christians that vote Republican because of important social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research. I know good Christians who vote as independents, focusing not on what religious political organizations like "Focus on the Family" tells them, but on the convictions God has put in their heart. Am I saying Christians shouldn't vote? No. I believe it's important as a citizen of this country to ensure the well-being of all Americans today and in the future.
What I am trying to say is that Christians can be loyal to both God and their government, but must not confuse the two. The church and the state are concerned with two entirely different spheres -- the spiritual and the physical -- and thus complement each other but do not work together (3). In essence, keep religion out of politics and always remember that Jesus was a social activist, not a political one.
References:
1, 2, & 3 are all fragments of the verse commentary found in my NLT translation of my Bible. The translations are on pages 369 (1); 484 (2); 1792 (3).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)