The Republican Presidential Debate in South Carolina highlights the basic general problems we face in America today. One person can always change the world, but Ron Paul cannot save the country alone. Resistance towards the Military-Industrial Complex can restore the country to its founding principles. On January 16, 2012, Ron Paul got his chance to explain his views to the nation. In my personal opinion, Ron Paul was on fire during the South Carolina debate. He is the only Republican that I believe can beat Barack Obama in January, but more importantly he is the only candidate who is talking about issues that matter to American citizens. Issues such as ending the war in Afghanistan, bringing our troops home from military bases abroad, ending the Federal Reserve System, thus ending the crazy amounts of Federal taxes I pay every year, are all at the fore-front of the national debate. These issues will remain there if Ron Paul becomes the Republican nominee to challenge Barack Obama in November.
Ron Paul is consistent in his voting record, and insistent with this pledge to end wars and close bases overseas. Few of his supporters doubt he will lead the charge to end the Federal Reserve as we know it once he becomes president of the United States. Many citizens are cautious towards Ron Paul and doubt that he can stop the fall of our Republic. If they are cautious because of other politicians or political figures then their caution is not based on the actions of Ron Paul, but on stereo-types and generalizations where people, places, and things can be placed on a global chessboard and moved as submissive pieces under a New World Order. We should judge each person by their own deeds, not by the deeds of a collective group or associates and affiliates.
“After 9/11 I voted for the authority to go after [Osama bin Laden] and my frustration was that we didn’t go after him.” – Ron Paul
Congressman Paul vocalized the fact that we had Osama bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora. What other candidate has even mentioned Tora Bora?
During the South Carolina Republican Presidential Debate, Candidate Ron Paul was questioned by Gerald Seib, of The Wall Street Journal, about Paul’s plans to cut Defense spending by “several hundred billion dollars in the coming years that inevitably would cost South Carolina jobs. What do you say to people in this state who worry that your military plans would hurt the national security and cost South Carolina jobs?”
“I would say your question suggests you’re very confused,” responded Ron Paul, “about my position.” Seib focused on the importance of South Carolina’s “seven major military bases and thousands of people employed into the defense industry.” Seib was particularly interested in why Paul would want to cut defense spending that would surely put thousands of South Carolina citizens out of work. “I would probably have more bases at home,” Paul told Seib. Paul plans to cut Defense spending overseas, not at home as Seib was inferring.
Paul noted that he gets “twice as much money from the active military duties than all the other candidates put together. So they’re saying that I’m on the right track. They’re sick and tired of those wars. They’re sick and tired of the nation building and the policing activity.”
The Wall Street Journal executive editor reiterated his point that Ron Paul’s “plan calls for freezing defense spending at 2006 levels.”
Ron Paul immediately corrected the editor by responding, “You still don’t understand.” After a few seconds of laughter, Paul continued. “There’s a difference between military spending and defense spending. Just because you spend a billion dollars on an embassy in Baghdad, bigger than the Vatican, you consider that Defense spending. I consider that waste.” The crowd then erupted into cheers for common sense. Paul seized on the moment and explained that the first cuts he would make would be “some of this military spending, like Eisenhower advised us. Watch out for the Military-Industrial Complex. Defend this country. We have to have a strong national defense. But we don’t get strength by diluting ourselves in 900 bases, 130 countries. That is where the problem is.”
This is just one of the problems we face. The point is there are changes we can make as a country. The governmental process is the minimum we could be involved in, if we believe in our constitution and this nation. I don’t believe that this country is lost, but that doesn’t make me right. I still believe we can make a difference within the system, but we have to be willing to look outside of it as well.
A vote for Ron Paul could be a vote for freedom, for the Constitution, for the Republic, and for peace across the world. It could be. It may be. It’s up to us. Even if we think voting is a waste of time and will accomplish nothing, what does it hurt?
Is it submission to a tyrannical government? No more than any other form of submission; and if you live in America, in some form or fashion you are submitting to a tyrannical government. What can it hurt to vote for Ron Paul? Better yet, who can it hurt but Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, the establishment media, and the Military-Industrial Complex?
In theory, if Ron Paul truly is who some of us think he is, and as President will legislate and enforce the Constitution of the United States to the best of his ability, then we have a unique opportunity to once and for all end the Federal Reserve System; including the federal income tax on all United States citizens. What’s Paul’s answer as to how much federal income tax U.S. citizens should have to pay? “Up until 1913 it was zero percent. What’s so bad about that?”
Following up this point Paul added, “Any time you spend money it’s a tax. You might tax, you might borrow, you might inflate. The vicious tax that’s attacking the American people, the retired people today, is the inflation tax. The devaluation of the currency, the standard of living is going down, and you need to address that, and that’s why I want to make the inflation tax zero as well.”
Long ago, the United States changed its defensive strategy towards war into an an offensive one, with disastrous results. The warnings of a Military-Industrial Complex were heard loud and clear by people who grew up in Ron Paul’s era. It was and is their duty to pass this warning down to the younger generations. It’s important that people know what our government is doing as far as foreign policy is concerned.
“This idea that we can’t debate foreign policy, that all we have to do is start another war? It’s warmongering,” Congressman Paul tells the South Carolina audience. “They’re building up for another war against Iran and people can’t wait to get in another war. This country doesn’t need another war. We need to quit the ones we’re in.”
Asked about the direction of the nation, Paul responded, “I think we’re going in the wrong direction for the protections of our liberties at home. They’re under deep threat. The Patriot Act has eliminated the Fourth Amendment. We now have a policy of preemptive war. You don’t have to declare war, and you don’t even have to have an enemy. We can start the wars. That’s what preemptive war is all about. Now with the military appropriations defense act, this is major. This says that the military can arrest an American citizen for [being] under suspicion, and he can be held indefinitely without habeas corpus, and denied a lawyer indefinitely, even in a prison here [in America].”
Oh yeah, who else is talking about the Patriot Act?