Sunday, January 29, 2012

Yes, I Support Ron Paul

            As more debates are put to bed and more polls are taken the more amazed I become at the American people, especially on the Republican side of the political fence.  I have to say that lightly since there are plenty that call themselves Democrats that actually have the same basic beliefs when it comes to freedom, liberty and smaller Government as their Republican counterparts.  At the same time there are some that call themselves Republicans that are just as progressive as those that proudly admit they are Progressives.  Just to be clear, a Progressive agenda is one that ends with the Federal Government controlling all aspects of your life, how and where you work, how much you get paid, what you can do with your private property, what type of insurance you can and will purchase, and what you may put into your body whether that be food, drink or other items.  To put it simply Progressives do not believe the American people are smart enough to make their own decisions, they believe we would blindly walk into traffic if they didn’t tell us otherwise.
            In 2009 the Tea Party movement began under the guise of the original Boston Tea Party protesting an overreaching, overspending and overtaxing Government.  It seemed America was waking up to the Progressive direction the country was taking under both Democratic and Republican leadership in the Whitehouse and in Congress.  The message that Ron Paul brought to the 2008 Presidential campaign was starting to take root.  Unfortunately it seems that the message wilted and died on the vine before it could be harvested.  In just 3 short years the Tea Party appears to have been strayed from their origin, no longer are they a grass roots movement that is looking for the candidate that will uphold the Constitution.  They are now looking for the elusive anybody but Obama candidate, what they are looking for is electability.  By using these criteria they are getting a Progressive Republican, which is some ways may be worse then just re-electing President Obama.  By putting a Tea Party backed Progressive in office they entire message of smaller Government will be corrupted.  Nothing will change in Washington except the letter behind the name and the Progressive movement will be able to blame the Tea Party stating that smaller Government principles do not work.  I am willing to bet that when the 2016 Presidential campaign begins there may be some policy differences but the evidence will show that the Government is still just as big if not larger and that Government spending has continued to go up.  This will only add fuel to the Progressive movement and we will end up with another Progressive in the White House, this time we may not be able to stop him or her, I’m not sure we are going to be able to stop the current White House or it’s agenda, whether President Obama is in office or not.
            While the Tea Party itself is not officially endorsing any candidate and claims they will not, it’s the media spin on prominent public Tea Party figures such as Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio coming out in support of Newt Gingrich that is lending credit to Newt Gingrich being the Tea Party candidate.  Newt Gingrich is as far away from the Boston Tea Party in principle as we all are from it in time.  Just listening to Newt on the campaign trail pandering to do whatever it is that the current State he is in wants the most is proof enough of that.  In NH he will build them a new VA Hospital, in FL he will get NASA off the ground again and colonize the Moon, in truth he will just down the same path of bankruptcy we are already on.  On the subject of colonizing, Newt will continue with the current policy of colonization of foreign countries under the guise of National Defense that we already have.  There will be no reduction in overseas defense spending, there will be no reduction of foreign aide spending, in fact, if the last few debates are any indication, we will start invading countries we just disagree with whether they are a threat or not, Cuba for instance.  Since this is not intended to be just about Newt let me state here that this is the one major area that I disagree with Rick Santorum on, he is dead set on being the protector of all foreign peoples and to spread democracy across the globe.  As for Mitt Romney it’s hard to read him, one time he will talk about reducing our overseas footprint, other times he talks as if he will continue with the current policy, not Obama’s current policy of pulling out troops though.  All of the current candidates do talk about having a strong military; it’s the how they will obtain it, where it will be deployed and what the defense budget will look like that we have to question.
            A strong military is essential to the survival of any country in today’s times.  Unfortunately that has been interpreted to mean that we have to have our military strung out across the globe which in reality has weakened our homeland defense.  There have been no wars fought on American soil since the War of Northern Aggression or for those of you that prefer, the Civil War.  Therefore the American People have been easy to convince that in order to provide protection for America it means we have to establish foreign bases and take preemptive action of Governments and groups alike that may possibly pose a threat to us at some point in the future.  The same attitude has allowed the continuing occupation of bases in Nations we have been at war with under the auspice of protecting our National Interests.  The truth is that that National Interest comes in the form of either Nation building, the spread of democracy, or in the form of political clout to have influence on foreign Governments in exchange for a military they are not paying for available for their protection, in turn we get what everyone else gets, trade agreements.  In those countries that we do not have military bases we use money in the form of foreign aide and military foreign aide to obtain our political clout.  All of this, while considered a drop in the bucket like earmarks, is supplied from taxpayer dollars, well actually it’s being supplied by loans that taxpayer dollars are paying off, that’s not true either, we are paying the interest of those loans.  In other words while our National debt has now reached 100% of GDP and we continue to pay what amounts to as bribe money to foreign countries, many of which never use the aide as it is intended, they use it to line the pockets of their politicians and leaders.
            The National Defense plan that Ron Paul has is the only one that makes sense, in fact it’s the plan that we are going to end up with one way or another, it’s also the only plan that follows what our Founding Fathers believed, especially George Washington who stated so in his last public address as he was leaving office.  Ron Paul’s plan is the plan we followed up until WWI.  Maintain fair and free trade agreements with Foreign Nations while staying out of the political entanglements of those Foreign Nations.  Maintain a strong military at home, which does go against the Founding Fathers beliefs, and invest in strong military defensive technology and intelligence.  The Founders actually did not want a standing army due to what the British standing army did to them.  In today’s environment a standing army makes sense but so does the Founders belief of renewing the budget for that army every two years.  If we continue on the financial collapse path we are currently on we are going to end up with a ragged version of Ron Paul’s plan, only when this occurs we will not have invested in the technology and intelligence necessary to ensure we are safe at home.  We will end up with worn out equipment that was used for training since our best assets were sent overseas and remain overseas and we will end up with a top heavy military since it will be cuts at the enlisted level, the fighting level, which will occur first.  Would you rather have a well thought out strong homeland defensive military or the dregs of a bankrupt Nations military?
            I focused on the National Defense plan since this seems to be the sticking point of many that consider themselves to be members of the Tea Party when it comes to supporting Ron Paul.  Yes I am a Ron Paul supporter, although by now I do not believe I needed to state that; more then that though I am an American.  I am and American that wants to save America for my Grandchildren and their Grandchildren.  America has many problems and all of them can be linked directly or indirectly to our economy.  Anyone that cares to look back at history will see that as soon as the Government started getting involved in trying to solve economic issues the economy got worse.  When the Government got involved in trying to create America all across the globe we started losing the America they were trying to spread.  When the Government got involved in trying to help Americans that were down and out get out of their hole those Americans found it was easier to stay out and the Government agreed.  America started out as a Nation of people that believed in personal responsibility and smaller Government.  We now have a Government that is following the Progressive playbook, a playbook that is ends with the Government that will control all aspects of our lives.  Just for clarification, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Conservatism as “a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage).”  Think about the current crop of GOP candidates and tell me which one fits that definition, it’s not the one that the news media is touting as the Tea Party candidate.

Steve Avery