The Problem with My “Crazy Uncle Ron”

Part 2 – Economic Policy

The problem with my crazy uncle is that he, actually, isn’t crazy at all.

 He gets a lot of criticism from the MSM, his coworkers and the general population for a host of things, his economic ideals seem outrageous to most, but they do resonate with a host of people, across many different backgrounds.

 I have heard a wide range of criticisms regarding Paul’s policies, everything from,

 “Ron Paul wants to send us back into the Stone Age.”

To

 “Ron Paul would allow the same banks that created the mess we are in to do anything they want.”

And my all time favorite,

 “Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the IRS and repeal the 16^th amendment. The economy would collapse without the income taxes, because the government could not function without that revenue.”

 There is a plethora of disinformation, political opposition, ignorance and just plain confusion, propagated and perpetuated largely by the media and the American people’s penchant for believing everything they see and hear on TV regarding his views.

 I understand where the confusion comes from, but at the same time I do not understand where the confusion comes from. Let’s look at it from a completely objective perspective. Let’s just pretend for a brief moment that I do not support Dr. Paul, but I am trying to determine if he really is off-base with his positions. I have heard a lot about this guy running for president and I want to see what his deal is.

 We will consolidate and address just the four or five things mentioned above; the core issues and ask questions that any self-respecting American should ask concerning these things. Responsible adults are tasked with the duty to look at everything objectively to find the truth in anything. Children can be consumed by emotion because that is part of the growing process. Adults, however, cannot be consumed by emotions as that can and ultimately will lead to irrational thought processes, mistakes and the perpetuation thereof.

 It is our job to seek the truth in all things so that we in turn may pass these truths on to our children and their children. We do a great disservice to future generations when we abdicate our responsibility and accept any and all stories at face value. It is for this reason, chief among others, that I do not watch any of the MSM channels very often, nor do I rely on them for any form of reliable, unbiased news and information.

 The Idea and positions:

1.      Sound Money

2.      Zero Government intrusion or involvement in the economy

3.      Free market principles and regulations

That's a fairly accurate summation of his policies and at a glance, it doesn't really sound all that bad. Let's take a closer look at each of these and try to break them down into terms and analogies that not only myself, but also other layman can understand.

 After all, I think most Americans want a stable money supply, they think they government should stay out of the economy, among other things, because the government really only messes things up. It's like a big, lumbering elephant trying to eat those little eggs on sushi rolls with a 2x4, blindfolded and standing on an egg while the trainer shovels peanuts into the trash can.

 Most of us grew up hearing the phrase "Free Market" and believe that we actually work and consume in one. From what I have read, watched and heard over the last few years, it seems more and more like that is not the case.

Sound Money

 What is it exactly and why do we need it?

 As I understand this whole thing, Sound Money, is just that - sound. Meaning it is tied to some sort of commodity or "backed" by it, thereby reducing or preventing the opportunity for inflation to decrease its purchasing power.

 Now, it could feasibly be argued that the US Dollar is, in fact, tied to or backed by a commodity so therefore it should be shielded from inflation. As I am learning, half of this statement is a half truth. The US Dollar is tied to oil, which is why you sometimes will hear the phrase "petrodollar" but it is not actually backed by oil.

 The Dollar is tied to oil simply because the US entered into an agreement with some of the major oil producers (Saudi Arabia, etc) whereby they agreed the US Dollar would be the sole currency they would accept as payment for oil. In exchange, the US agreed that it would protect the oil fields from invasion by any other country. This is kind of complex and confusing, but in a nutshell, if you want to buy oil, you have to use US Dollars.

 The effect this had on the dollar was great and immediate. Demand for it as a currency shot up and so did the value of it.  So now, we have the US Dollar as the sole currency for buying oil, thereby granting it De Facto, so to speak, status as a reserve currency.

 Countries now had to purchase or exchange their own currencies for US Dollars if they wanted to buy oil. I'm not sure how it works exactly, but I do know that when there is a high demand for something, the cost and value of it increases.

 So, the dollar is tied loosely to oil, but that does not guarantee the value of it. The dollar can be devalued in two ways:

• If oil-producing countries decide to allow the purchase of oil in any other currency than the dollar, or a barter system or an exchange for a commodity of similar worth or value. This will cause demand to drop and with it the value of the dollar. This is called Deflation and it is happening now. Iran, China, India and Japan have entered into an agreement to purchase/sell oil where they will not use the dollar.
• Inflation. Inflation is caused when a supply of monetary instruments enter a system that already has an abundance of them in supply. It is also caused by increasing a monetary base artificially, because it is not backed by anything real therefore, no new real commodity has been introduced to support it, through the printing and introduction of monetary instruments.

 Confused yet? Don't feel bad, I was and still am. I don't want your head to explode, but now we are going to look at the half of a half-truth.

 So the dollar is tied to oil and is used as a reserve currency of the world because it is the only currency with which you can buy oil. However, it is not really backed by anything. For a monetary supply to have a commodity backing that same supply can only be increased or decreased in conjunction with the backing commodity.

 Is the dollar backed by anything? No, it is not.

 Is the dollar subject to inflation? Yes, yes it is.

Watch this.

And this also.

Read This.

 Our current money supply is a faith/demand based currency, which means two things. If demand is up for our dollars, then the value of our dollars will also be up, but if the demand falls, then...

 We have faith in our dollar because the government tells us that we should and because, well, it's been like this for so long. What the average American doesn't realize, and what I didn't for so many years is, that our dollars really are not worth anything. They have no intrinsic value and they are only as valuable as they are limited in supply.

 If a dollar can buy a cup of coffee today, because there are only 10 trillion of those dollars in the system, what do you think happens to the value of each dollar when the Federal Reserve prints another trillion or so? That's right, now that same dollars value is decreased by that same percentage of money that has been created and introduced into the system. The effects of inflation are not felt immediately, but they have a tendency to slowly creep up before they slam the dollar.

 This is what is sometimes referred to as a "loss of purchasing power."

 If a monetary supply is backed by gold, silver, land or any other valuable, permanent commodity, then it can only be increased by introducing a matching volume of the same commodity. In simple, if you have 100 tons of gold worth 100 dollars, you cannot create or introduce another 100 dollars until you find and introduce another 100 tons of gold.

 Demand and inflation are prevented from wreaking havoc on any permanent, valuable commodity backed monetary system.

 Now knowing this, I can honestly say that I am all for a gold standard monetary system for the US. I now find it completely ridiculous that we, as Americans, have accepted inflation in our monetary base and that we have and are continuing to allow our purchasing power to be decreased, literally every day.

 In the 1970's a "luxury" car cost about $3500.00

 Today a "luxury" car costs about $35000.00

 In 1913 the cost of one troy ounce of gold was less than $20.00

 Today that same ounce costs close to $2000.00

How is this acceptable?

Zero Government intrusion or involvement in the economy

This one is fairly short, because after all, there really isn't a lot of digging to be done if you want to know whether or not the government should be involved in the Economy.

 I have been looking and as of yet, I have not found a single positive thing the government has done with respect to its involvement in the economy. Really, I can't.

 They tax and over tax. They spend and over spend. They regulate and over regulate. They show preferential treatment to businesses of their friends. They removed us from the gold standard in the seventies. They waste money profusely and they created, foster and protect the Federal Reserve System that is killing our dollar.

 I now understand that the government cannot "stimulate" the economy because the government has nothing with which it can stimulate. It never really occurred to me that the government really has nothing because it produces nothing, everything they do have they have taken from the taxpayers. Therefore, in reality, they are stimulating the economy with our own money, yet we do not get to see the benefits of it because the money they took from us; they gave to their friends and the banks that are perpetuating these problems.

 "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the industrious out of it. You don't multiply wealth by dividing it. Government cannot give anything to anybody that it doesn't first take from somebody else. Whenever somebody receives something without working for it, somebody else has to work for it without receiving. The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don't have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don't get to enjoy the fruit of their labor."

 Dr. Adrian Rogers

So now, I understand that the government should stay out of the economy completely. It should let the consumers stimulate it, should it need to be stimulated and that it should not take our money to stimulate the economies of a few banks or corporations.

Free market principles and regulations

I have already researched sound money and government involvement in the economy and so far, Paul seems to be making a lot of sense on these issues. It really is just common sense and I have a hard time understanding why or how others cannot see this.

 We need to have policies in place that protect our monetary base or money supply from inflation and deflation. It just makes sense, I don’t want to wake up tomorrow to find out that it now takes one and a half dollars to buy a cup of coffee, when yesterday, it was only one dollar. To me that’s ridiculous, and I have to call it as I see it. Someone, other than the IRS is stealing my money, that’s the only way I can rationalize it. Whether it’s the retail store or the Federal Reserve, some one is not playing fair or anything that could even be loosely referred to as fair.

 Okay, so now let’s move on to the Free Market and those principles. For the longest time I was under the impression that our economy was, in fact, a Free Market – I was wrong. You have to look at it from a realistic and objective perspective. Party lines aside, whenever the government gets involved in anything, that anything is no longer free. It’s that simple.

 What we see today is the government getting involved way too often and instituting far too over reaching and over bearing regulations upon the people that actually work in the market. It has, essentially, created a “closed” market in which certain entities garner special treatment. It’s true, just look at Halliburton, GE and Boeing. These large companies and those similar to them, get the lion’s share of government contracts, not because they are the most efficient or proficient at what they do, but because they have friends in high places.

 The free market is just that – free. It is free to regulate itself and free to operate in a true supply and demand cycle. Before I get into the specific arguments that I have heard, I just want to touch on the actual vs. artificial supply and demand cycles we see in our economy today.

 Free Market:

 If a base of consumers desires a product, then a demand is created for said product. Companies will compete and the consumer will decide what companies are successful based on the quality of the product and the value-for-dollar-exchanged it offers. When demand increases, prices are also likely to increase in the short term, simply because “everybody wants one” and the demand puts a strain on the supply of not only raw materials, but the actual supply of product being created.

 Prices will increase over the short term, but in most cases will ultimately peak and begin a decline into stabilization. They will remain stable until a newer version of the product is introduced into the market causing another increase in demand. One the older product version is no longer in such high demand; we will begin to see prices for it begin to drop, sometimes dramatically. We see this everyday on “Clearance” racks and end of the year car “Sales”. Out with the old and in with the new.

 This is the way the free market should operate. To a certain extent, it does have the illusion of operating in this fashion, but a deeper look can and will reveal the tell tale signs of government intervention and market oppression.

 Closed Market:

  This type of market is actually what we operate and consume in today, and have for some years. I think most of us don’t even bother to look deep enough at certain things and because of that, we are unable to recognize the tell-tale signs of this closed market system.

 In a closed market, the supply and demand cycle is still present, but it is, for the most part - an illusion. Demand is still a driving force behind production and consumption, but the demand is all too often artificially created or propped up by government interactions and regulations. Let’s take a look at a few examples of an artificial demand cycle created by government interaction within the market.

 A great example is the auto industry. We need look no further than the bail-outs of 2007 and 2008 to see this interference. Car companies, namely US car companies, were in bad shape. They were increasingly becoming unable to compete in the market due to foreign manufacturers producing superior products with better prices. There are three prongs to this issue of government interference and will address the most prevalent first.

 Financial dire straits

These manufacturers found themselves literally on the verge of insolvency as they had mounting debt and a consumer base that could no longer support their business. In addition to the shrinking consumer base, the general market had been, for some time, rejecting their products as inferior, resulting in an ever shrinking base of support.

 Unable to generate enough revenue to sustain the businesses they turned to the federal government for help. Public outcry was indeed great and I, myself, was among those enraged by the bail outs they received. The influx of much needed capitol by the Federal Reserve by way of government decree is one example of government interference in the market. If this truly were a free market, the unviable business would have been unable to attract private investor support and would ultimately become totally insolvent. It would have filed for bankruptcy and most likely restructured, becoming again a viable company in the after math.

 The company would have lost little to no blue collar jobs in the end and would have shed a few needless middle and upper management positions. This is the way it works in America everyday, and this is the way to should have been allowed to work in this instance. The market will force a change or correction to any industry unwilling or incapable of imposing that correction upon itself, when the market, or consumers, decide it is necessary.

 The US automakers would most likely be in a much better position than they are now and they would most likely be offering new and better products to the market. Instead, they are offering the same old bucket of bolts with fresh paint. The market isn’t buying it.

 Government sponsored union influence

The introduction of the unionized workforce was a good thing, once upon a time, but it is no longer necessary. Unions were successful and they should be given some credit and praise for influencing and bringing about changes in work place safety and overall conditions. However, the time of the union is over and it should be recognized that, while they once sought legitimate protections for their workers, they now only succeed in hampering any production advances in the majority of industries.

 When a union of workers demand safer working environments and fair pay, I have no issue with that. When a union of workers demand, dictate and hold a company or agency hostage or seek to extort monetary gains and relaxed production goals via an organized strike, I have an issue with that. Take a look at some of the union contracts for the auto industry and you will see some truly ridiculous things.

 These things range form disciplinary action to production speeds to salary and wage earnings whether or not on the job – as in lay-offs.

 I have knowledge of more than one or two outrageous things contained in SEIU’s bargaining unit contracts.

 The government sponsors these labor unions through the passage of legislation favoring these organizations and through the establishment of labor relations boards. When a union can tell a company that they cannot move their business to another state, and the government backs the union - that is an issue. When a union can tell a company, they cannot fire a worker for a reason that would be justified in a non-unionized workforce - that is an issue. “So he was only caught selling drugs at work once? Well, did he kill anybody? If he had killed someone then we would say you have to provide anger management training to him at no cost and continue to pay his normal wages while he is in training.”

Artificial Demand

 The other example of government interference and influence upon the market is the artificial demand cycle that it creates. A great example of this is the recent housing bubble and subsequent collapse. The federal government passed legislation and instructed financial institutions to relax their lending guidelines so more Americans would be able to acquire financing and purchase homes. This is all well and good, for a time, but look what it ultimately led to. The lax lending guidelines enabled people to finance homes, cars, boats, RV’s and a host of other things that they, under normal circumstances and guidelines would not have been able to finance – let alone afford.

 In essence the government allowed the banks to artificially prop up demand for homes and other consumables in a bubble of prosperity that would, ultimately burst and leave all who were exposed, in a terrible position. Artificial Demand…

 On the surface, before the bubbles pop, it’s all well and good, but what people simply don’t understand is that the Federal Reserve, with the blessing of the federal government has created and is fostering a moral hazard with respect to investing. Look at the derivatives market, who knows how much that junk is actually worth, but who cares about that. Look at what the investors made off the initial sales and how the taxpayers like you and I got the shaft when the bills came due.

  The second instance is, and has been, going on for some time. It’s real simple; take a look at any local, state or federal employee cars. It’s an interesting thing to note that they are all American made cars, meaning they are either, Chevy, Ford, GMC or…well I can’t even remember the other one. See what I mean? The demand cannot support the business so they run to the government and say, “Help us or we will go out of business” and the government obliges. In the free market, they would go out of business or be absorbed by another viable company.

 This is an artificial demand created by governments. They use our tax dollars, or borrow money from foreign governments or agents to purchase and prop up companies that the market would not purchase from or support. The auto industry is not the only industries the government does this to. Remember Solyndra?

 The other side of artificial demand and one that I really do not care to get into – because it makes me sick – is subsidies. There is so much to them and they are so prevalent that when you actually look at them – all of them – you have no other choice but to accept the fact that our market is not, a free market.

 Did you know there is an agribusiness in southern California that brings in more in government subsidies than its product is worth? What I mean is if they received no money from any government they would actually lose money every year! And they don’t even grow necessary food stuffs.

 It is true that whenever you subsidize something, you get more of it. If the government creates an artificial demand by subsidizing a particular industry or product, then there will be an increase in the supply for that product. Simply because as more and more producers become aware of the subsidy, they will want to climb aboard that gravy train. Just look at corn, cotton, soy, cars and green energy.

 The problem with subsidies is at least two fold. In addition to having serious moral and ethical problems, they also lead to a false sense of security for the industry. They create a false demand for a product that the open market, or consumers, cannot or will not sustain.

 The other issue is price setting or fixing and price deflation. Cotton producing countries have sued the US and won over unfair price advantages due to subsidizing of crops and products. When a producer receives a subsidy from the government, it essentially allows the producer to charge whatever price he wishes because he knows he will receive that check form the government to cover his “losses”. This creates an unfair advantage in the market and can and most often will lead to the loss of another market competitor that does not receive subsidies. Look to the Flood Insurance market for proof of this.

 The second part to this is when government subsidies created the artificial demand and the market does not or cannot respond to it quickly. What this does is establishes an over abundance of supply, which in turn, causes the prices of these products to decrease. The price depreciation requires that the government increase the amount of each subsidy to cover losses. It’s a self perpetuating cycle that can only be corrected when the market is given sufficient time and means to react to the problem. However, the reaction and correction is often severe or at least unlike any realistic correction a free market would impose. For an example, look at the corn-ethanol-subsidy relationship.

 A few years ago the demand for corn to produce ethanol increased dramatically due to a broadened filed of government subsidies. But here is the idiotic part; the government paid these farmers to grow corn that was ultimately made into ethanol and then added to gas. So we essentially grew a bunch of corn, and then burned it up. That caused the price of corn and corn based products to spike. Moronic…

 The ironic thing about most of this free market stuff is that I have never read any books written by Mises or Paul or any other economist. Most of the stuff I have learned, I learned from a fishing website. Talk of water rights led to the subsidy issue, which led to the demand issue, which led to the market question. All of that led to government intervention and then I took a look at our monetary policy and the fiat instrument we use.

 It is literally mind blowing when you start to actually go down into the rabbit hole. Most of this stuff I started looking into before I listened to Ron Paul. Before I watched that first youtube video at my brother’s house back in 2007, I knew about subsidies, free market principles and government intervention. I started looking more deeply because my wife and I were looking to buy our first home together.

 If we are serious when we ask ourselves questions related to the economy, then we can really only come up with answers that support Ron Paul.

Should we have sound money?

 Yes. My son can drink a gallon of milk a day. Do you know how expensive milk has become?

Should the government be involved in, try to stimulate or regulate the economy?

 No. Let me spend my money the way I see fit. Stop taking our money and giving it to you friends or spending it on things we don’t need or want.

What style of market will best benefit me and others like me?

 A free Market will be beneficial to all that operate or consume in it. The closed market that we now operate and consume in only benefits a select few and I can tell you, we the 99%, are not among them.

Should we have a truly free market?

 Yes, yes we should. Freedom is always best. Freedom is popular.

 I have since looked into quite a bit and now, honestly, I have to say - Ron Paul isn’t as crazy as they make him out to be.

The Problem with My “Crazy Uncle Ron”

Part 1 – Foreign Policy

The problem with my crazy uncle is that he, actually, isn’t crazy at all.

 He gets a lot of criticism from the MSM, his coworkers and the general population for a host of things, but I think first and foremost is his clear polar-opposite ideals concerning foreign policy. I think there is a plethora of disinformation, political opposition, ignorance and just plain confusion, propagated and perpetuated largely by the media and the American people’s penchant for believing everything they see and hear on TV regarding his views.

 I understand where the confusion comes from, but at the same time I do not understand where the confusion comes from. Let’s look at it from a completely objective perspective. Let’s just pretend for a brief moment that I do not support Dr. Paul, but I am trying to determine if he really is off-base with his positions. I have heard a lot about this guy running for president and I want to see what his deal is.

 So what exactly is/are his foreign policy position(s)?

1. We do not give aid to any foreign nation unless the people have given their approval and the house has voted for it. (Natural disasters, Humanitarian efforts)
2. We refrain from intervening in the day to day business of foreign governments.
3. We refrain from intervening in wars, whether they are internal of external, unless those wars directly affect American interests, or the safety and security of the American people.
4. We do not go to war unless attacked; waging only just wars and not wars of aggression.
5. We do not go to war unless we follow the law of our land and declare the war.
6. We outline a specific set of goals and parameters that we hope to achieve via military action.
7. We establish a set of accomplishments that will allow us to determine if and when victory has been achieved.
8. We do not rebuild those nations we have made war upon.
9. We do not rebuild nations that our allies have made war upon.
10. We do not build any nation other than our own, especially through means of violence, coercion or bribery.
11. We come home after we achieve victory.

Those 11 points are very cut, dried and simplistic in view. Objectively, I would even say that they are akin to the “Golden Rule”.

 We have rules, policies and laws regarding bullying in schools, but yet it seems we are completely apathetic with respect to bullying internationally. If you walk around punching and kicking people just because they disagree with you, sooner or later you will find yourself back into a corner by a very angry mob. In simplistic; it’s the law of nature and that’s just the way it is.

 On the surface, I am starting to think that Ron Paul is actually not all that crazy after all. His foreign policy stances are, in fact, reasonable and logical. But, I am still not convinced that I can vote for the guy…after all, the MSM seems to have it out for him. I want to look at each point a little closer and maybe ask a few reasonable questions about each one.

We do not give aid to any foreign nation unless the people have given their approval and the house has voted for it. (Natural disasters, Humanitarian efforts)

 Ok, I get that. I think America and her people have enough troubles at home, fiscally and morally, and we have a greater need to keep as much money as we can here in the states. It stands to reason that if we stop sending billions to other countries, that we may even be able to pay down the debt, or lower taxes. Both of those are good, in my opinion.

 However, I don’t want to cause any problems with struggling nations that need this money to stave off terrorists and dictatorships.

 I am trying to justify this rationality, but I have read more than a few articles and consumed information from other sources that are at odds with this logic. We gave the Pakistani government money and they were harboring Osama! We gave Egypt money and now look at them. We gave Libya money and look at them too. The list goes on and it seems the deeper I dig, the more the case for foreign aid becomes a fallacy.

 I am also finding out that the money we give to these governments rarely makes it down to the people. So the humanitarian argument has to be thrown out. So I guess, after all, we probably shouldn’t be taxing the American people to send money to foreign governments, because in the end, it doesn’t do any good. I mean if we gave one billion to a nation of 300 million, they should each receive something like three thousand dollars, but I don’t think they do. It seems to me like the government is keeping it and doing something other than helping its people.

 Hell, I’d like to have that three thousand, that’s ¾ of my sons’ yearly tuition.

We refrain from intervening in the day to day business of foreign governments.

 Well yeah, I can’t see how any rational, logical, thinking or responsible person would disagree with this. I don’t think we would like it if Russia said we couldn’t build TV’s because China needs the work and money. I think we would tell Russia to take a walk.

We refrain from intervening in wars, whether they are internal of external, unless those wars directly affect American interests, or the safety and security of the American people.

This one is also pretty reasonable and logical. If they haven’t bombed us or our property in their or any other country, we should let them sort out their own affairs. I mean, if I see two men fighting in the street, I’m not going to go and break it up. Why would I? I don’t know why they are fighting and quite frankly, it’s none of my business. They’re grown men, it’s their business. As long as they don’t get too close to my property or family, I have no interest in it, other than entertainment.

We do not go to war unless attacked; waging only just wars and not wars of aggression.

 Again, from a rational, logical perspective, I see no issue with this. I’m an adult and as an adult I understand the concept of self defense versus aggression and offense.

 If some stranger walked up to me and said, “Hey, I think I might want to punch you in the face.” I wouldn’t automatically punch him in his face, just to prevent him from punching me in my face. That’s kind of dumb.

 I might say something to the effect of; I have no issue with him and ask why he’d want to punch me. Then I’d tell him that it would not be the smartest thing to do on his part. I would try to understand his problem and get out of the situation, if possible. If not, I would ask him if he wants to go home, or to the hospital.

 It’s kind of stupid to think that it’s okay to punch a guy because he threw some words at me. I would like to think that I’m better than that and that I have better control of my emotions. It’s one thing to throw words, but throwing punches is another issue.

We do not go to war unless we follow the law of our land and declare the war.

Well, yeah I get this one too. After all, we are supposed to be a nation of laws and the supreme law of the land states that the congress, and only the congress, has the power to declare wars. It’s kind of silly to argue that we couldn’t declare the war because it would take too long, or that we had to wait until the congress was back in session. No, actually we have provision for that. Congress can be called back for emergencies and in this day and age of technology and instant gratification, they could have a declaration typed up and ready for a vote in an hour.

 The other argument, that a declaration is not needed is also a bit silly and ridiculous. The president can authorize military action in an emergency, but beyond that he has no power to declare and wage war. The war needs to be declared so everyone knows what enemy we are fighting and why. That’s fairly simple.

We outline a specific set of goals and parameters that we hope to achieve via military action.

Duh. Who doesn’t like goals? There is nothing wrong with setting goals. They help to keep the action on task and serve as morale boosting milestones. I think everyone on earth has at least one goal.

We establish a set of accomplishments that will allow us to determine if and when victory has been achieved.

Yes, again with the goals. I mean, seriously, how could we possibly tell if we have won, if we don’t even know what we are fighting for? We knew we had to kill Hitler. We knew we had to depose or kill the emperor. Kill the army to get to the leaders…simple, yet effective.

What was the purpose of the Korean War?

Look at Vietnam; why the hell were we there? What were we supposed to do? What kind of victory were we looking for?

I don’t even want to talk about the fiascos in the Middle East. Talk about a clear as mud set of goals and mission objectives. Kill all terrorists. Yes, that’s awesome! Umm…who exactly are the terrorists then?

We do not rebuild those nations we have made war upon.

We do not rebuild nations that our allies have made war upon.

We do not build any nation other than our own through means of violence, coercion or bribery.

We can lump all these together into the same category, because, in reality, they are all the same category.

 Looking at this from a layman’s perspective, from a guy that has no college education and from a guy that has only recently (last few years) started looking into this stuff, the idea of foreign nation building, is completely ridiculous, immoral, asinine, insulting, degrading, tyrannical, stupid, wasteful of lives, time and money and to put it simply, a fucking farce.

We have roads, bridges, schools, and buildings falling apart here.

We have thousands upon thousands of homeless people here.

We have families that are struggling to make ends meet here.

We have children that are born into and perpetuate poverty here.

We have people starving and eating out of trash cans here.

This sad, pathetic list goes on and on…

 The daily cost of the Iraq war is around 720 million dollars. Let’s assume that a small fraction of that daily money is for the rebuilding of that nation’s infrastructure- 20 million.

 For twenty million dollars we could pay the mortgages on one hundred, 200 thousand dollar homes – every day! Now multiply that by 30, now by 365. We could rebuild one bridge, fix countless roads, build new schools and hire more teachers and so many other things here, in America.

 What really makes me sick and pisses me off about this whole nation-building fiasco is this: We invade countries for whatever reason, then we bomb the hell out of them and destroy their infrastructure, then we borrow money from the Federal Reserve, the taxpayers and China to pay private companies hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild the shit that we blew up….in another country!

 Me thinks we should just stop blowing shit up and start taking care of America and Americans. Rebuild this nation first.

We come home after we achieve victory.

Hell yes we should come home. Why would we keep them their? We have already completed all mission objectives. We have smashed the enemy and their ability to make war. We have waged war unequivocally and set an example of our might and dedication. We don’t need to waste our soldier’s time by keeping them in-country. They have already won and they deserve some rest, relaxation and time with their friends and families.

 Let’s let them cool off over there for a month or so, and then let’s bring them home to cool off for another month, and then they can go on their merry way with the gratitude and respect of the American people for a job well done.

 Keeping them around for years to “keep the peace” and “protect American interests” is a pile of malarkey. What interest should we have in a country that has attacked us and has been destroyed in retaliation? Should we build an embassy there? Hell no, if they want to be friends again let them take the first step and build the embassy for us.

 To be completely honest, I would feel much safer knowing there were a couple hundred thousand trained soldiers walking around the cities and towns of America.

 I have a few soldiers in my group of friends and family. Some of them are older and some of them are around my age, but all of them seem to agree on one thing, “I did my job, now I want to go home and see my family. I want a hamburger and French fries.” I think they have earned it.

  After looking at all this, asking myself question after question and trying to find a reasonable and logical example – any example or reason for that matter – to be at odds with Ron Paul’s foreign policy…I just can’t. I mean I really can’t do it. It just makes sense to me and I think when you look at all the questions, then answer them truthfully with fact based arguments, you really won’t have any reason to not support them either.

 So, in summation, my “crazy uncle Ron”, gets my vote on foreign policy as I just cannot rationalize any other perspective.

In Liberty,

 Richard Camacho

The Anti-Paul Thesis and Rebuttal

 Over the last few years that I have supported, Ron Paul, his Presidential campaigns, and the intellectual R3volution he champions, I have heard many, many arguments against the man. The arguments range from personal character attacks to incredulity concerning his positions on liberty, sound money, foreign policy and the current state of American affairs.

 With a revolution of any kind, there will always be skeptics and there will always be those that oppose and seek to undermine the movement. A violent revolution will experience a decreased amount of verbal and written attack, since it is the nature of violence to dispense with the opposition.

 But with a peaceful or intellectual revolution, the opposition must either use covert means of subjugation, propaganda and ignorance or violence. But the use of violence can have a detrimental effect on the opposition and succeed in undermining any argument of justification they may have for using such violence. Knowing this, opposing forces will oftentimes resort to violence only as a means of a last resort.

 Instead it will, most often, use propaganda and ignorance as a means of deflection and subjugation. Relying on the unwillingness or apathy of a population to spread or at least no discriminate against its purposes. An obfuscation or misrepresentation of the fact surrounding any circumstance, position or event can be an effective tool in combating any resistance or ideology.

 Inveigle, Obfuscate, Divide, Marginalize, Ignore, Vilify, Distort and Corrupt.

Apathy:

 “Lack of interest in anything, or the absence of any wish to do anything”

Ignorance:

“Lack of knowledge or education, unawareness of something, often of something important.”

 Below you will find a list of commonly heard arguments, attacks and statements associated with the rejection of Paul and his ideas.

First and foremost:

 “I like Ron Paul, but his foreign policy is crazy."

 Ron Paul merely advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy with respect to the affairs of sovereign nations. He does not want to police the world and he does not want our sons and daughters dying in needless wars. This is a huge issue, especially in today’s world, but it is a relatively simple issue.

 Ron Paul and the majority of his supporters believe that we should not engage in nation building and that we should not seek to undermine or influence the government of nations in the world. We should be friendly to all nations, promote trade and diplomacy, but that we should not involve ourselves in the business of other nations as far as it does not concern or jeopardize American lives or interests.

 Astonishingly enough, this is the same foreign policy that the framers of the Constitution and the founders of this country adopted and promoted. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington both said that America should trade with all nations, but avoid entering into an alliance with any, that we should promote American ideals of peace, liberty and prosperity throughout the world, through diplomacy and example.

"He wants to gut the military and leave America open to attack from terrorists.”

 Just for one minute, imagine how safe we, as Americans and as a country would be, if we brought all of our soldiers home. If we let them keep their rifles and side arms and spread them around the country. There truly would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. No terrorist would ever think of coming to our home land to attack us and no nation would try to invade America.

 Ron Paul’s campaign does, in fact, receive more in active military donations than all other republican candidates combined. I believe it is also just over twice the amount that Obama has received. You can’t have a crazy foreign policy and receive that kind of money from soldiers.

I could dedicate this entire article to this one topic, but I want to cover some other issues. This article delves a little into the effects of our foreign policy and how it affects, not only American citizens, but also our soldiers and the citizens of other nations.

“Ron Paul is a racist."

   If Paul really is a racist, let me just say, that I have never, ever-heard one racist comment uttered from his mouth and I have never read anything that could be construed as racist written by him. I have watch hundreds of videos of campaign stumps, debates, interviews, and commercials, none of which contain anything racist-with or without an undertone.

 I have read one of his books (I need to buckle down and buy the others), many of his statements and a plethora of supporter statements as well as information contained on his campaign website. All again, lacking any and all racial inferences.

 I will admit though, he, like any and all other candidates does have some prejudice people that support him. There are some angry white people that donate to him, but I am just as sure there are some angry black, brown, yellow, pink and purple people that support and contribute to him as well. Hell there may even be some with polka-dots too!

 Just because you have a supporter that espouses certain positions, does not necessarily mean that you agree with those positions. In Paul’s case, he stands on principles that are the exact opposite to the ideas of racial subjugation and segregation.

 The very promotion of individualism, freedom, whether economic or social and premise of limited government is the antithesis of prejudice and bigotry. You cannot, I repeat, cannot believe in the idea of individual liberty and also harbor feelings of racial inferiority. It just doesn’t work that way.

 The individualist sees all persons as a singularity in a collective world. The individual is his or her own master and as such are responsible for their own thoughts, behavior and actions. An individualist cannot ever merge the two ideas of individualism and collectivism, because one is most clearly a detriment to the other. In simple, they are mutually exclusive to one another.

 A collective is comprised of individuals, yes, but it is the individual that gives power to the collective. So a person may be part of a group, but the group may not necessarily be a part of the person.

"He wrote bad things about blacks and Hispanics in his newsletter years ago."

 As to the newsletter writings, yes, the paper may have been in Ron Paul’s name, but he did in fact not write the articles. When the articles in point were written Ron Paul was back practicing medicine, traveling and giving speeches. He was no longer a decision make within the paper, was not the editor, nor did he read the articles until years later.

 The article with the racial over tones was written by a man named James B. Powell as reported by Ben Swann of FOX 19 in Cincinnati, Ohio. You can read the facts concerning those newsletters here and here.

"He said he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights Act and that businesses should be allowed to discriminate.”

 As for the Civil Rights Act, at first I had a hard time wrapping my head around his position. I do admit, when I first heard the statement, I did not agree with him. Then again, I heard the statement from a talking head on TV and didn’t research it for a few weeks.

 I agree with the premise of, “Why would anyone be against the civil rights of another person?” I agree, whole heartedly I do. However, I have researched and read and watched and thought long and hard on this position. After a few months I can say that I now, do agree with Dr. Paul.

 Why? Because just because it is your right, does not make it right. Your rights end where mine begin. That’s why.

 There are two ideas behind not supporting the Civil Rights Act.

One: Private property.

Two: The Inalienable rights of man.

 A restaurant is a business that is owned, usually solely, by one person. As such it is his property and patrons enjoy the privilege of dining and purchasing his products. A common misconception surrounds this issue and lends to the ignorance of private property and its usage.

 No person, regardless of status or law, has the right to trespass on another’s private property. The right of way concerning private property is granted solely, by willful permission of the owner(s). There are some exceptions to this rule, but they surround the issue of access to public waterways that existed prior to the property becoming private.

 Any person or government that would seek to force an owner of private property to use or allow to be used, that property in a manner that is against what he desires, whether by violence or threat of violence, is both morally and philosophically wrong. In the eyes of millions of private property owners, as well as the framers, they are legally wrong as well.

 If I should choose to not allow black people into my house, there is nothing the government can do about it, because, it is private property. Why should it be any different for a store, restaurant or any other business owned and operated as private property? The products I buy are mine. I bought them with my money, made through the sweat of my labor, store them on my property, that was also bought with my money and I do not have to sell them to anyone that I do not wish to sell them to.

 You do not have a right to purchase products. You have an opportunity to exchange your money or the product of your labor for something of equal or lesser value. These exchanges have been taking place for thousands of years and will continue to take place for many more. A purchase is merely the agreement between two or more individuals to exchange one thing of value fro another thing of value.

 You cannot force someone to sell you something, especially if the product is of their own labor. If a business owner does not like a person because of the color of their skin, he then has every right to refuse to service or sell products to that person.

 A person does not have a right to walk into a diner, sit down and purchase food, unless that diner is owned by the people of the state. A person has an invitation, based on a mutual understanding that he or she may enter into a business for the purposes of purchasing products and services. An invitation is a request and conveyed permissive to attend an event. It is not a right, it is a privilege and as such, it can be revoked by the grantor. Think about birthday parties, if I do not invite you, you have no right to show up at my house and join the party. I have every right to ask you to leave, and then apply force to make you leave if you do not do so willingly.

 You do not have the inalienable right to buy food from a diner, or chips from the corner store. You don’t, you really don’t. That right did not come with the package.

Besides, why in the hell would you want to sit next to a bunch of bigoted morons let alone give them your hard earned money? Yes, I love sitting next to people that hate and want to kill me because the government says I can.

“He would deregulate the banking industry and let them take over the country. He is for big business because he wants to remove all the regulations that protect us.”

 Ugh…yes, this is a real statement, I have rebutted it before. I can’t believe I am even going to lend credence to this ridiculously idiotic statement but here goes.

 Ron Paul is not for big business, he is for business period. We live in a day when small businesses face a mountain of paper work that has to be completed. Businesses have to file for permits, pay fees to god knows how many different county, city, state and federal agencies before they are even approved to operate. Assuming they are approved, then they have to deal with regulation upon regulation once they are up and running.

 The company that I work for has staff that only deals with government regulations. They learn new regulations, and make sure we are complying with existing regulations. It’s a huge waste of time and money especially when some of these regulations are duplicated at various levels. Now, I work for a multi-billion dollar global company and I have a hard time wading through all of the ridiculous regulations, rules and policies that affect my day-to-day duties. I spent three hours one day just figuring out, how to figure out, to whom I could and could not export. Then I still had to find out if I could.

 Contrary to popular belief, deregulation is not a bad thing. It has been vilified in recent years over the housing debacle and subsequent debt defaults, bailouts and a bunch of other stuff. Here's the thing, the problem is not a lack of regulation, it is a problem of a poorly calibrated moral compass. It is a problem of a moral hazard created by the Federal Reserve banks and bolstered by the federal government.

 If the system had been allowed to work properly, that is, if there had been no bailout, then some very large companies would have defaulted, declared bankruptcy and then restructured. The companies would not have gone away, well...not all of them and tens of thousands of people would not have lost their jobs. A few hundred maybe, but certainly not anywhere near the numbers we were told by the MSM.

 The debt would have been liquidated immediately and we would be well on our way, if not fully into, a recovery. The problem is; the federal government stymied the checks and balances within the system when they chose to authorize the Federal Reserve Bank to issue the bailout monies. That, not only prolonged the slump, but it has allowed the debt to stay on the books, inflated the monetary base and pissed off the American people.

 Lack of regulations is what the market needs to work and thrive. What we see and work with today, are not the free markets of capitalism, but a perverted mutation called crony capitalism. In this market, the regulations only help to aid the favored companies while hindering or altogether preventing small or start up businesses from thriving.

Oh yeah, one other point: Ron Paul has no issue with states creating and implementing regulations on businesses that operate within their borders. So, to anyone that says, thinks or hopes that regulations will go completely away in a Paul administration, it's not going to happen. What will happen is the federal government will start minding its own business in this land and around the world.

"He wants to get rid of the income tax and the IRS. He's crazy; we can't run the country without taxes!"

 Hell yes he wants to get rid of the unconstitutional, illegal, fraud of an income tax. Myself and millions of other Americans are all for it. Honestly, I would think you were crazy if you said you wanted to keep it. Here is why and how it can work.

Everyone these days is talking about the economy and jobs, or the lack thereof. How do we fix that? How about a gigantic, permanent stimulus package? However, this isn't for the banksters, this is for us, the 99%.

 Imagine if every person in America suddenly had 18-38% more money in their pocket to spend. You talk about a boom. There would be a boom the likes of which America and the world has never seen. Companies would grow, small businesses would pop up left and right, jobs would be plentiful and the pay would be great too. The standard of living for all working Americans would increase and the economy would thrive.

We would see all kinds of new technology, innovations and infrastructure projects and renovations would be off the hook. American would once again, become that shinning city on a hill where gold is tripped over in the streets and people have so much money there mattresses would be ten feet high! You want jobs. There are your jobs. You want retirement security. Here it is. It can work and we can have it. Don't let anyone tell you that we need the income tax to make this country work, that's a pure 100% bull hockey lie. Don't believe me, then answer this; how did America survive for 137 years without it? She thrived.

Now, why should we get rid of the IRS and income tax? Well the short answer is because we don't owe anything to the federal government. There is no authority for it in the constitution. It was snuck in during a treasonous vote and there is a question of whether or not it has been ratified correctly.

 The long of it, not one single red cent of your stolen tax dollars goes to support, fund, repair, reduce or otherwise benefit you. One hundred percent of the tax money collected goes to pay the interest on the money that is charged by the Federal Reserve for the privilege of using and printing The United States Dollar. Look into the Grace Commission that Reagan convened.

Still think we need it? I call BS.

I may add to this later as I hear or remember more of the asinine statements people and the media make towards and against Ron Paul's positions and statements, but for now, this is all.

 In closing, I just want to say that if your sole provider for news and information is the TV or radio, you are indeed mislead and misinformed. I challenge all who read this to check these facts and research the candidates for yourselves. Do not take my word for it concerning Ron Paul; after all, I am a little biased.

I can't help it; I'm totally digging the idea of Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness.

In Liberty,

 Richard R. Camacho

What is it about Ron Paul?

Free Will and the Will of a Free Society

 

 If a society should will it, then it shall be free. If a society should take leave of their will for another’s, or if it should seek to impose their will, on the individual, then it shall forever remain bound into the slavery created by their will.

 Aside from God, Jesus, Yeshuah, Allah, Providence, Buddha or any other form of deity that we believe in, the will of society is not so great as to be infallible or just in all cases. However, the will of a society as a collective majority, can also be just if it is justly imposed.

 But what if then, a collective will, is unjust or unjustly imposed upon society as a whole? Does indeed might make right? I would persuade you against that theory in that it is as much a threat to the free will of man as the deprivation of oxygen is to his life. Might can only perpetuate might in that it is often born of a desire to repress the will of another. Right will always be right until it is used in the endeavors of wrong. Thus, just because it is your right, does not make it right.

 Let us then, for the sake of this article, agree, Theologians and Atheists alike that there is indeed a higher power that seeks to provide instruction for a just and moral life. That there is indeed a deity that granted life and free will and that he continues to watch this world and its inhabitants. Let us address him in the most general of terms as God.

 The founders of this country and the framers of her Constitution were stalwart in their belief in a higher, guiding force. They agreed that such a force has endowed upon his creation of man, certain rights that are natural, inherent and therefore inalienable.

 “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

  Declaration of Independence

  “The highest manifestation of life consists in this: that a being governs its own actions. A thing which is always subject to the direction of another is somewhat of a dead thing.”

 Saint Thomas Aquinas

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”

 Marcus Aurelius

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”

 Thomas Jefferson

 So then, our forefathers and many a man and ruler in ancient history not only believed in a creator, but believed that that same creator had granted the right of self determination, self governorship or free will to the individual man. They believed that mankind had the right to rule his body and actions and to seek and fulfill whatever desires he may in his pursuit of, not only knowledge and fortune, but of happiness.

 How then does it come to pass that we have found ourselves being ruled yet again? How then have we come to give up this right of self determination? Why is it that a collective society can assume they may impose their will, just or unjust, upon any other man, woman or child?

 The individual, aside from God, is the single most powerful force on this planet. The individual alone has the right to determine which way he should go in life and what actions he may take. The individual is capable of a great many things, for the individual is capable of thought and reason.

 I propose that it is completely deplorable and laden with rebuke for a collective to seek to repress any just or moral action of the individual. The mass is only capable of group thought and speak; it has no capability of reason or thought in that it must, for its very existence, abhor these things. It must denounce the very idea of individualism and self determination.

 Though in doing so, it is also renouncing and repressing the greatest gift that our creator has bestowed-Life.

 For what is a life lived in its entirety in chains and bondage, servitude and serfdom? Nothing I dare say, but merely an object of existence. A rock may exist, but it has no life.

 If we do accept that God has given us to life and free will, then we must also accept that these gifts have come with a price. In every powerful being there exists such a desire as to see its subject live under their will. Such I believe is the desire of God. He in fact, does wish for us to live in his honor and after his image and teachings, but he also has granted us leave if we should so choose another path.

 Therefore is it entirely acceptable for a child of God, his creation, which among all other man is equal, to decide what another man shall do with his life? Is it therefore then acceptable that a Catholic should decide that all mankind should not eat meat when the custom of lint should come about? Or the Christian to partake of no wine or drug, or the Muslim to partake of no pork? I remain staunch in my belief that this is near chief among the greatest transgressions man can inflict upon his brethren.

The forceful or coercive application of the ideas of one or many, upon a single individual, is second in tragedy only to the actual physical taking of his life. An individuals mind and intellect is among the chief of those most precious gifts entailed in life. Is it not in the mind where happiness is perceived? Is it not our minds and intellect that allow us to define our happiness by counting it against our sufferings?

 To make a man espouse the ideas of another, forcefully, is an evil, tyrannical thing. In all cases this act should be met with the utmost and vehement force of rebellion. The retention of all things singular and precious to this individual should be retained, and it is his will alone that can determine what will or will not be cast aside.

 It is a derelict society that would seek to impose its own ideas and will upon the individual. It is an immoral and corrupt society that would seek to ridicule, persecute or excommunicate the individual that would challenge these same things. It is also a cowardly individual that would allow this same treatment to persuade his ideology.

 There can be a time however, that an imposition can and should be tolerated. The father that teaches his children about morality and integrity should, in all cases, not be hindered. The pastor that teaches his congregation after the teachings of God and his book should not be abhorred. The student that seeks knowledge from his teacher should not be abridged in any way. But, there will and must come a time when each of these will, in the course of responsibility, throw off these harnesses and seek for themselves the truth of the questions.

 This time must come in the course of natural events. It must be allowed to expand as a result of the individual’s own desire and it must come freely. A society is in no way just, nor does it have the authority, to bring about these changes or inflict upon the individual a reprieve from these things.

  A society must stand aside and let man, for himself, determine when he shall stand and when he shall lay. When he shall read and when he shall speak. It is a fearful and dastardly thing indeed for a society to seek or obtain the power to direct the individuals mind and mouth to its own ends. This act should be repelled in every instance.

 The ideas of an individual are the very foundation of a free society. They are the fruit born of labored intellect and they should be well received in all cases. Is every man not entitled by way of life to his own thoughts and opinions? Whether they be perceived rightly or wrongly is of no consequence. If a just and moral idea should give way to actions of the same, then how should a society succeed in putting them down? If an unjust and immoral idea should lead to actions of the same, but not be put down, how then should this society be regarded?

 I should say that the individual is the very thing upon which a society is formed and the very thing which gives it power. Therefore is it not conceivable to assume that every idea and individual is indeed of the collective? For an idea may inspire one or many to the same cause. Those same individuals may take shelter in their own collective to insure their merits are well received and debated. Is this not the way it has always been?

 I should upon reflection and reference state yes. Men have always been drawn to those of like mind and conscious. Whether they be moral or immoral is not the basis of this argument, merely a by product. If endowed with the ability and desire to seek and espouse our own ideas, but having those same rejected by the majority of society, is it not our way to form a group of individuals wherein the same reasoning and logic can be found?

 If so, why is it then allowed, for one collective to be deemed just, while another, created by the same desire of company, should be vilified? I know not and can fathom no logical or sane reasoning as to justify this behavior.

 If a free society is to at all, remain free, or a bound society is to ever, become free, it then must accept the individual and the respective ideas as an integral part of the same.

“Reaching consensus in a group is often confused with finding the right answer.”

 Norman Mailer

 “The unity of freedom has never relied on uniformity of opinion.”

 John F. Kennedy

In Liberty,

 Richard Camacho

Ron Paul 2012