Ron Paul: We Live in a Dictatorship

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. While these are valid points, Paul has some credibility issues to deal with:

    He’s well aware that no President can afford to be seen as “weak”. If you make cuts in defense spending, we know that that would be the right thing to do. Yet, the Powers that Be and the MSM would instantly label him as not being tough enough against terrorism. How will he deal with that?

    Going back to the gold standard will only add even more confusion to the global markets.

    If you eliminate the Fed, what will you replace it with? In all of the hype he’s put out about this, not once has he ever proposed an alternative.

    We’ve all heard the story about President-elect Clinton sitting in the White House for the first time, excited about all of his future goals. Then, two of the Powers that Be (forgot their names, sorry) basically came in and said shut up and pay attention. THIS is how it works here. Don’t even dream about this other stuff.

    Assuming that this really happened, how will Paul be different? Set aside the race issue for a moment (yes, it’s sad that in 2011 this is still an issue. But, unfortunately it is). How will he actually stand up to this?

    Since he’s a physician (who I’m assuming still does his annual continuing education to maintain his license), what’s his view on health care? Does he consider it to be a human right, or a priveledge for the rich? If it’s a human right, good for him. If it’s not, how can he justify that? A physicians’ job is to treat patients and save lives. It’s been proven that single payer would do this. As a govt. employee, he enjoys national care. Why is he allowed to have it and I’m not?

    How specifically will he stand up to AIPAC? At this point, I have a really hard time picturing him trying to get things done as he’s being labeled as an “anti-semite”.

    If he overturned the Patriot Act, what would he replace it with?

    How does he define a “terrorist”? Do I have a right to publically criticize the Israeli govt. without having to move to a non right-to-work state to protect my job?

    Finally, what does he consider to be effective bank regulation? or, does he suggest the usual politician’s answer of we need a new study group to examine this and issue a report?

  2. Bill Bergman says:

    Nice list of things to prepare for, Yoshi, and people have been, or should be, preparing for them.

  3. Steve Hogan says:

    Yoshi,

    Your post cries out for a response.

    First, Ron Paul does not care about appearances. He doesn’t care about perceptions. He votes his conscience, and his views are based on principles. His 30-year voting record is a testament to this fact. Whether one agrees with his policies, I don’t know of anyone that can question his credibility or his honesty – a very rare commodity in Washington.

    This includes the ridiculous “war on terror.” Paul understands that it is US government sanctions, bombings, invasions, torture, renditions, and assassinations that foster anti-American sentiment in the Muslim and Arab world. Bringing the troops home and dismantling the absurd empire we’ve erected is Job #1, especially in the Middle East. If a few neocon warmongers have a problem with this, tough.

    Re: the gold standard and his supposed lack of an alternative to the Fed, Paul proposes a repeal of legal tender laws, which are nothing more than an attempt to provide people with an alternative to Federal Reserve Notes as the only legal means of repaying debts. That alone would instill some discipline with an out-of-control Federal Reserve. An audit of this counterfeiting cabal is also desperately needed, followed by an orderly transition and the ultimate abolishment of this evil banking cartel.

    I have no idea what you’re referring to about the “race issue.” Paul doesn’t believe in group rights. They are meaningless. We only have individual rights, which is completely separate from group grievances that have regrettably dominated political discourse for a very long time.

    Health care: there’s a wealth of information about his position on the matter. Google is a good thing. Use it. In short, no one has a right to something that compels others to provide it, including health care. A true right requires universality. Forcing your neighbor to provide you with something, no matter how much you want it, is not a right.

    What would replace the Patriot Act? Nothing, except a return to Constitutional principles. The so-called “Patriot Act” is an abomination and a blatant violation of the Constitution. Anyone that thinks we need to be fondled at the airport, have our conversations and email snooped, and have 1000 overseas military bases to keep us safe, is a victim of the American public school indoctrination.

    Yoshi, are you an independent-thinking person or a brain-washed zombie? I suspect the latter. Prove me wrong.

  4. Yoshi – You couldn’t be more wrong. Your claims are demonstrably false. Some of your questions shouldn’t even be dignified with a response, but a couple points–

    Firstly, contrary to your assertion, Ron Paul has many times stated what he would like to see the Fed replaced by–if the stars aligned & he was able to have it abolished. That you are so unaware of this fact indicates that you are more interested in justifying your preconceived notions rather than actually examining ideas and gaining knowledge of areas you’re ignorant in. He has maintained that the ideal would be the Hayekian standard where there no entity–especially not quasi-governmental central banks–would hold a monopoly on the legal currency, with the corresponding ability to use such inordinate power to debauch it & destroy the country’s entire economy.

    Secondly, some of the foremost experts in international trade & finance have openly called for a return to the gold standard specifically so as to salvage the failing global system we currently have, let alone replacing the joke of a domestic monetary system that exists in the US today. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14grant.html?_r=1; http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eda8f512-eaae-11df-b28d-00144feab49a.html; http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/world-bank-president-advocates-the-gold-standard/

    Thirdly, if you don’t realize how completely corrupt & evil Clinton was long before he even came near the White House, you have some reading to do. Clinton was up to his neck in the CIA’s drug trafficking operation through Mena Arkansas as Governor, and there were plenty of people killed to shut up potential whistleblowers. He was a globalist at least since he accepted the infamous Rhodes scholarship and was gushing praises to Carroll Quigley. Some have claimed that his visits to Moscow during his Rhodes days were on behalf of the CIA–this wouldn’t surprise me. Any goals he had for the country probably would have been just as bad for the country as anything his told him to do.

    As for how Paul would be different–you have to realize that unlike Clinton and Bush, Paul isn’t the kind of totally degenerate, moral reprobate with such heinous baggage that he could be blackmailed into doing whatever the establishment wanted. Granted, the deep state within US politics probably wouldn’t sit idly by if serious efforts were made to change the status quo even if they weren’t able to prevent him from getting into office, but not supporting the best candidate for such a reason is just like throwing in the towel & giving up any efforts to improve things at all.

    “If he overturned the Patriot Act, what would he replace it with?” You’re kidding, right? You want something to replace it??? If you’re worried that he would replace it with something else, you really need to do your homework on Ron Paul.

    He already has stood up to AIPAC already w/his consistent position on foreign aid

    His position on bank regulation is to complex to explain here, but he voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall, & maintains that until we have an actual free market (without the Federal Reserve creating the moral hazard), those regulations should have been left in place. It is notable that he is the only candidate to have presciently predicted the financial crisis years before it arrived (as noted here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2007/11/the_ron_paul_argument.html)

    Lastly, if you really think the best way to solve the health care problem is to put it into the hands of the same government & the same corporations that gave us the MIC, countless fraudulent wars, the financial crisis, & all the bankrupt government-run ventures, I can’t fathom the cognitive dissonance. There are much better ways for health care services to be distributed than turning the power over to the same entity that has facilitated the the rising costs and the shortage.

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.

  5. Yoshi – You couldn’t be more wrong. Your claims are demonstrably false. Some of your questions shouldn’t even be dignified with a response, but a couple points–

    Firstly, contrary to your assertion, Ron Paul has many times stated what he would like to see the Fed replaced by–if the stars aligned & he was able to have it abolished. That you are so unaware of this fact indicates that you are more interested in justifying your preconceived notions rather than actually examining ideas and gaining knowledge of areas you’re ignorant in. He has maintained that the ideal would be the Hayekian standard where there no entity–especially not quasi-governmental central banks–would hold a monopoly on the legal currency, with the corresponding ability to use such inordinate power to debauch it & destroy the country’s entire economy.

    Secondly, some of the foremost experts in international trade & finance have openly called for a return to the gold standard specifically so as to salvage the failing global system we currently have, let alone replacing the joke of a domestic monetary system that exists in the US today. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14grant.html?_r=1; http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eda8f512-eaae-11df-b28d-00144feab49a.html; http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/world-bank-president-advocates-the-gold-standard/

    Thirdly, if you don’t realize how completely corrupt & evil Clinton was long before he even came near the White House, you have some reading to do. Clinton was up to his neck in the CIA’s drug trafficking operation through Mena Arkansas as Governor, and there were plenty of people killed to shut up potential whistleblowers. He was a globalist at least since he accepted the infamous Rhodes scholarship and was gushing praises to Carroll Quigley. Some have claimed that his visits to Moscow during his Rhodes days were on behalf of the CIA–this wouldn’t surprise me. Any goals he had for the country probably would have been just as bad for the country as anything his told him to do.

    As for how Paul would be different–you have to realize that unlike Clinton and Bush, Paul isn’t the kind of totally degenerate, moral reprobate with such heinous baggage that he could be blackmailed into doing whatever the establishment wanted. Granted, the deep state within US politics probably wouldn’t sit idly by if serious efforts were made to change the status quo even if they weren’t able to prevent him from getting into office, but not supporting the best candidate for such a reason is just like throwing in the towel & giving up any efforts to improve things at all.

    “If he overturned the Patriot Act, what would he replace it with?” You’re kidding, right? You want something to replace it??? If you’re worried that he would replace it with something else, you really need to do your homework on Ron Paul.

    He already has stood up to AIPAC already w/his consistent position on foreign aid

    His position on bank regulation is to complex to explain here, but he voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall, & maintains that until we have an actual free market (without the Federal Reserve creating the moral hazard), those regulations should have been left in place. It is notable that he is the only candidate to have presciently predicted the financial crisis years before it arrived (as noted here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2007/11/the_ron_paul_argument.html)

    Lastly, if you really think the best way to solve the health care problem is to put it into the hands of the same government & the same corporations that gave us the MIC, countless fraudulent wars, the financial crisis, & all the bankrupt government-run ventures, I can’t fathom the cognitive dissonance. There are much better ways for health care services to be distributed than turning the power over to the same entity that has facilitated the the rising costs and the shortage.

  6. thymesup says:

    Thanks for this good response, Steve. (‘ve heard the same story re Obama when HE first came to the White House. Maybe it’s an urban myth. More likely, all presidents have been similarly confronted. So what is the point of voting at all, then?)

    I think he is admirable to have voted his conscience all these years. He has integrity and courage to so speak his mind. The first time I heard him during the debates in 04? I thought, “YES, this man understands how foreign policy works.” So telling that those like Nader, Kucinich, Paul are not allowed to speak very often, if at all, to the American people directly and honestly without ridicule, via corporate ‘noose.’
    The indoctrination of the people is ennabled by the media as well. I do not trust the ‘regulators’ to do the right thing for the people.

    I do wonder about his taking govt sponsored insurance via being a congressional member. Or does he forego it? The American people are forced to pay this for these privileged ‘others’- who could afford to pay for their own. The special features after Moore’s “Sicko” are excellent. England’s humanitarian-minded Tony Benns is one interviewed at lenth.

    I think we do have a form of socialized medicine for those poor enough. It is the hard working folks in the middle who pay 800 plus per month for health care-or go uncovered. Then when they get sick, they still have a 5-7000$ deductible. They’d be better off puttin it in bank, except everyone is too scared that they won’t be able to pay the exorbitant emergency costs should they go to hospital.

  7. thymesup says:

    The sickly laughable thing is that the middle class is manipulated into blaming those poor for ‘milking the system’, instead of placing blame where it rightly lies, with those CEOs ‘earning’ astronomical rewards and the system that favors them. And how often does corporate news blame the wars for our lack of money to spend at home.?

  8. jschoneboom says:

    Just wanted to say thanks for posting this video here, Sibel, I probably would have missed it otherwise. I hadn’t focused much on Ron Paul or taken him very seriously until I saw your references to him here. I’ve seen a few videos of him now, during debates and off-stage after debates, and I’m very impressed with his consistency, integrity, and honesty. And just his rationality, really, e.g., after McCain and Giuliani went off on absurd quasi-patriotic rants all indignant about how Paul suggested that US foreign policy has an affect on how we’re perceived abroad, he just remains calm and sticks to his point. We don’t have too many people of this caliber, just integrity-wise. Now, in my opinion, he puts way too much faith in the free market, which I believe works very well for the rich and not so well for others. But I like him. The country could do a lot worse than have him as president. I wish him well.

  9. @remo: Thanks for the link; I just watched it. I may make it there next Saturday to take photos…

    @jschoneboom: And thank you. I found the clip at LRW site. Did you know, in 2002, he was the onlt outspoken congress against PATRIOT ACT? He has this incredible speech in 2002 (congress floor) on ‘USA: The Police State Coming.’ And I didn’t know about that that speech until late 2007 (Thanks to the MSM!). Powerful stuff. Here is the link to the transcript: http://web.archive.org/web/20080507081752/http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062702.htm

  10. Did you know, in 2002, he was the onlt outspoken congress against PATRIOT ACT?

    What about Dennis?
    http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=222&Itemid=76

  11. Not to mention Senator Wellstone, though you said “congress”.

  12. I wonder why I thought Wellstone voted against it? Feingold was the only senator who voted against. Woops.

    here’s the house roll call on it
    (
    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml)

  13. @Zica: A few others in congress (House) voyed against, but none as outspoken as Paul. Please refer to his speech in 2002 (above link).

  14. jschoneboom says:

    Thanks for the link to his 2002 “police state” speech. Again I like the way he makes an intellectual argument rather than appealing to anger and fear like so many other politicians. But I have to say, as many times as I said “right on!” reading that speech, I cringed about the same number of times. I mean, hooray, anti-Patriot Act. Hooray, US foreign policy is responsible for making enemies (and destroying our economy), something so logical and obvious it’s insane more politicians are afraid of saying it. But I find it ironic he would applaud Bill Gates in the same breath that he champions “free markets.”

    Nothing against Bill Gates, but for whatever else he is — a great businessman, a great philanthropist, a great techie — he presided over the single greatest monopoly the world has probably ever seen. Nothing free about that market.

    Also, Paul rather glibly dismisses all regulations including consumer and environmental protections and makes them sound like ominous threats to our liberty. Can he be that unaware of the history of capitalism? It’s so naive you almost want to give him a hug.

    And he thinks gun control harms regular people. That’s just bad math. Pile up the opportunities for self-defense against the accidental deaths and stupid regrettable crimes of passion. It’s not even close. You think if a bad guy pulls a gun on you, you’re going to what, reach for your holster and have a shoot-out like the Wild West? And win? Again, it’s ironic in a speech about the illusion of safety he can simultaneously perpetuate this foolishness.

    One more example: he buys the idea that the 9/11 “intelligence failure” was down to errors and turf wars, and he argues that the FBI should get out of the CIA’s way. Seems to me the FBI had the promising anti-terror investigations, which as you well know appear to have been squashed not by any bureaucratic bungling but by intentional malfeasance. Paul’s ideas here would appear to betray some ignorance, although he may have learned a lot since 2002.

    Anyway, I still have a lot of respect for the guy and like him and without any doubt he is a credit to the US political system. One gets the feeling that even where there are differences of opinion, the option of rational debate is always there…and he could possibly be won over on a point or two!

  15. “Also, Paul rather glibly dismisses all regulations including consumer and environmental protections and makes them sound like ominous threats to our liberty. Can he be that unaware of the history of capitalism? It’s so naive you almost want to give him a hug.”

    My question to you is who is doing the guarding of our environment and consumer’s rights? Many people have your view on the matter but I think the foxes are guarding the hen houses not some saintly regulators. And even if they are good regulators with good intentions it’s a system with a single point of potential failure, i.e. a few regulators.

Speak Your Mind