Ron Paul & The 100 MPH TrainGOP leaders prefer Mitt Romney to be their party's nominee. They see him as the most electable, in part because he is the most moderate. The media prefers Newt Gingrich. As big government devotees, they want more Obama and believe the nomination of Newt best serves that purpose.
The tea party movement, which rejects the GOP's big government faction, can hardly be satisfied with either candidate. Neither represents a significant movement toward smaller government, and neither demonstrates conviction to conservative principles. While Romney and Gingrich can clearly be identified as preferable to Obama, they do not represent a fundamental change in our country's direction.
Why do we need a fundamental change in direction? To make it simple, visualize a train speeding 100 mph toward a cliff. That train is America and our present economic dynamics make up the track. If you need convincing, consider the following:Since government created the power to print money out of thin air in 1913, the money supply in circulation has been increased by more than 500 times. Let that sink in for a moment. In less than a century, that legalized counterfeit scheme has diluted the purchasing power of the American dollar by more than 97 percent. Contrast that with our nation’s first century, when the purchasing power of dollars backed by gold remained virtually unchanged.
Of course, the primary reason for all that money creation was so that politicians could borrow it. Vote-buying is no small expense. The resulting consequences have led to a Loading...National Debt -- one that cannot be paid off even if every dime of our annual production was dedicated to the task. And, far from stable, it is growing like a malignant tumor. The prognosis looks particularly grim since the cure, reduced federal spending, must be administered by politicians who use that very spending to buy votes. This is a pragmatic dilemma that can only be overcome by principled representatives.
In addition to drastically diluting wealth and putting our nation hopelessly in debt, politicians have also made future promises regarding Social Security, MediCare, MediCaid and other federal programs that total more than $100 trillion. These are called unfunded liabilities. Now consider that our total tax revenue in 2010 was $2.16 trillion. Do the math, its not pretty.
Okay, so we are on this train speeding a 100 mph toward a cliff. Electing Gingrich or Romney as engineer may slow it down to 50 or 60 mph, but the the train will not be deterred from arriving at its destination. The growth of government must stop. To make citizens richer, politicians have to made poorer.
Many Americans have no trouble embracing Ron Paul's thirty year quest to pare government to its Constitutional size, curb the ability of politicians to corrupt the free market, move toward a sound money policy, and to recast government as a protector of individual liberty rather than a primary threat.
Paul’s well documented stumbling block with Republicans is his foreign policy. It has been characterized as kooky and naive by commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. But, could it be they who are guilty of that charge? Let's look beneath the surface.Many conclude that the Texas congressman does not grasp the seriousness of the radical Islamic threat. After all, irrational zealots convinced that suicide and murder are divinely virtuous cannot be dissuaded with words. Therefore, a preemptive move to eradicate all known pockets of these mindless killers deploys the same rock solid logic of other pest extermination. What is so complicated about this?
The most common errors in political decision-making occur when policy is focused solely on the intentions of a proposal without fully having considered significant factors like costs, feasibility, and the dynamics to be set into motion. Republicans acknowledge this mistake when they critique five decades of the welfare state, but conveniently ignore it when reflecting on four decades of the drug war. Unlike principled politicians, pragmatic ones deploy truth only when it serves as an effective political ploy.The point is, the recognition of the radical Islamic threat should not be the sole driver of a military policy. There are other considerations to weigh. Can the desired objectives be attained? What is the basis for thinking so? What is the cost in blood? What is the cost in treasure? Will it be funded by wealth we have or that which is borrowed from China? What is the cost in lost liberty to American citizens? And, what becomes the default mechanism of America's defense strategy?
Since terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy, a war on terrorism can never be won. There will always be at least a threat of terrorism. Unless America arbitrarily decides to stop fighting, it puts our country in a perpetual state of war. It establishes war as the default mode for America's defense strategy. Only Ron Paul balks at this notion.
Ron Paul is committed to an unrivaled national defense, but doesn't accept the notion that perpetual war and citizen searches are the necessary prerequisite. In a carefully deliberated and Constitutionally declared war, Paul makes it clear he would seek to defeat the enemy both expeditiously and completely. He would then return his country to the default mechanism of peace. He understands that perpetual war is not a necessity, it is only a philosophy. It takes a subtle and sophisticated understanding to realize why no action is always preferable to an irrational action.
Economic realities require that government identify and pursue activities that are both attainable and necessary. Those activities which fail to meet such a test cannot continue to be indulged. Defending the United States of America clearly qualifies, but policing the world does not.
Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to halt government's runaway train before it reaches the cliff. He is the only candidate that has the necessary courage to tackle the excesses of both the welfare state and the warfare state. He is the only candidate committed to protecting individual liberty. And, he is the only candidate who understands that if America collapses economically, it's game over. Every other issue, including defense policy, then becomes inconsequential.
