Dr No. An odd nickname and seemingly a negative one at that. But just who is Ron Paul, and why are so many people saying Yes to Dr. No. A good question and one that deserves an answer. I will endeavor to answer that fully so that you might know why I support him and why you should support him as well.
Background:
Ron Paul is indeed a doctor. An OB/GYN to be precise and he has delivered over 4,000 babies in Brazoria County, Texas. Paul served in the military as a flight surgeon in the Air Force. Dr. Paul first became a Representative in the 1970's and even then made a name for himself as a Constitutionalist. Dr Paul was one of just 4 Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan in 1976.
(This post is long and this is me blathering, skip to the first pic if you just want to read of Ron Paul)Now this is where I start to join the story. I still remember the second election of Reagan. I remember wholeheartedly supporting him and being glued to the TV watching my hero win as the results were coming in. I think I should point out that I was 7 at the time. I grew up a Republican. I watched a betrayal by Bush the Senior when he betrayed his promise to the nation of "No new taxes." When I was 14 or 15 I became a full fledged Ditto Head. I watched, supported and was even excited about the Contract With America. But then I noticed something. Once in office, the Republicans just had a quick vote on those things and they didn't pass so they just brushed it all under the table and hoped we forgot about it. But I didn't forget about it. I realized that they kept increasing the size of the government. Nothing went away. Not the National Endowment for the Arts, not the Dept. of Education. Nothing. The Republicans moved away from their rhetoric of small limited government and took the positions that had been abandoned by the Democrats who moved left for a more liberal/socialist stance. Each time the Democrats became more liberal it is as if they redefined the Republicans to move them to the left as well.
My ideals and beliefs had changed very little but my party had moved out from under me. This is when I decided that my party was the Libertarian party. But not completely. In 2000 I made a conscious decision to vote against Al Gore. My only option in doing so was to vote for Bush the Younger, whom I didn't particularly like but at the time the "Lesser of Two Evils" argument seemed very persuasive to me. Needless to say, I have learned my lesson and will no longer, in fact ever again, vote for the LoTE. I will abstain from voting if evil is my only choice. This is both a religious reason as I believe I will be held responsible for supporting evil, as well as a practical one. The practical reason is that lending my vote adds legitamacy to the evil.
Ron Paul has very much earned the nickname of Dr. No. He has done this by steadfastly supporting the Constitution and it's requirement of a limited federal government. The No comes from being a lone voice voting no against unconstitutional spending and bills despite the rest of the group voting for it. You may see a vote of 434 to 1 and you can almost be assured that the no belongs to Ron Paul. He doesn't do this to spite anyone or to simply be contrarian, but because he believes that what the Founding Fathers wrote is indeed what they intended. So if they wrote Congress shall make no law, Paul believes that what they REALLY meant is that Congress shall make no law. It really IS revolutionary, hence the banner shown below which was designed by the very first Ron Paul meetup group.
Dr. Paul has never voted for a tax increase, never voted for a congressional pay raise, has never voted for federal gun control, and never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never taken a government paid junket, and significantly, he has refused the Congressional Pension which is a MUCH sweeter deal than is available to us peasants.
Ron Paul spoke against the Iraq war starting in 1998. Yes this long predates the current war but its beginnings are there. He also spoke against the war before we went into this current "war," urging a vote of Congress which is what the Constitution demands. Ron Paul voted against the poorly named USA PATRIOT ACT. He did so out of a respect for Liberty. His colleagues should have done so because no one even had the bill in front of them to read it. (It was made available just 4 hours before the vote)
So those are some of the things Dr Ron Paul is against. What is he for? Dr. No has submitted legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve. He has submitted legislation to allow the farming of hemp (we are the only industrialized nation that doesn't allow it) Paul wants to abolish the IRS, the Dept of Homeland Security, and the Dept of Education among others. Interestingly Paul notes that abolishing the IRS and the income tax would mean rolling back spending... to 1997 levels. Just 10 years ago. And for those who don't know, that wouldn't make SS go away. Those taxes are, somewhat, different than the income tax.
Paul intends to bring home the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support the action in Afghanistan as it seemed that chasing Bin Laden was in our national interest. We have failed in that however and it is time to bring our boys home. And not just from there, but from across the world. Now I don't know the extent that he would pull our troops from other countries. I doubt he would remove them all, but nations like Germany really don't need what amounts to a monetary handout, and he has stated as much.
Those troops would then be available to defend OUR borders. Currently it is insanely easy to get across our borders and with all this talk about terrorism we still leave our borders, particularly the southern border completely open. If a terrorist wanted to get in all he has to do is walk or maybe hire a coyote to smuggle him in. Not so under Paul. We would have defended borders. This is needed for security, economic and even health reasons. Further, the savings provided from having out troops home could be used to shore up social entitlements until we wean the public off of those entitlements, and this is Paul's plan.
Paul is very pro free-trade. By this he means allowing trade with all nations and removing the entangling alliances we find ourselves in. He holds that we do not need things like Most Favored Nation status for countries like China, rather we need to simply allow the market place to decide who wants what goods, and where they will get them from.
Paul wants to return us to a commodity based currency. Doing so will remove the ability to continually dilute the currency which is THE cause of inflation (by its very definition.) This would remove the inflation which steals away the savings of every individual which leaves them with nothing at retirement and therefore dependent upon the government for assistance. This move would also ease the bubbles we have been seeing a lot of lately.
I could go on for quite some time on Dr Ron Paul, but I have probably lost most of you by now. So in closing... Paul is a staunch defender of Liberty. He upholds the Constitution, he is very well read which is evident in his responses to questions. And he actually answers questions posed to him rather than evade them. His ideas are not open to being bought, they are based upon the concepts of Liberty and Freedom and as those ideas do not change, neither do his positions. I think I can boil all this down to calling him a Statesman.
Ron Paul serves US, he has defended US repeatedly. It is time that we stand up for Ron Paul. To that end, I am actually going to make my very first financial contribution ever to a political candidate. It won't be much as I don't have much. But I can be assured that Dr. Paul's campaign will use it wisely and far more prudently than the others running for President.
Links:
RonPaul2008DailyPaul.com
