Worth the Reading: Ron Paul

Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Mitt Romney and His "Strongest Military" Pledge

Dear Mitt Romney,

Please take a moment to re-asses your notion of America's military might.

As a member of the Federation of American Scientists, a group dedicated to nuclear non-proliferation, I have had the opportunity to study US and international military powers.

Your commitment to enlarging the US military to such a size that would "make it impossible for anyone to oppose us" is frankly absurd. Aside from the face we already have a military decades ahead of any other it is impossible to maintain a military that would eliminate any and all threats.

The idea that any blue-water navy nation would attack us is something that is not in the realm of possibility. What is possible is having rogue nations or terrorists groups attack us. The problem is that countries like Iran have no capability to attack us directly and there is no solution to "terrorism" since it is nothing but a tactic carried out by small bands of individuals and even a military twice our current size couldn't hope to stop all acts of terror without shredding the Constitution.

If you look at Iran, the "long-range" missile they recently tested only had a range of 125 miles. The US has dozens of missile types with ranges from 1,000 to over 8,000 miles directly and world-wide given our air and sea delivery platforms.

Please consider theses facts.

The United States Navy is the most powerful navy on Earth. In fact our Navy outweighs, battle fleet tonnage, the next 13 largest navies combined. We also have 75 nuclear powered submarines. On the other hand Russia only has 24 nuclear powered subs with that number expected to be reduced to 20 over the next few years.

Our Navy also has 11 aircraft carriers, the total number of aircraft carriers world-wide is only 21. On top of our massive naval capabilities the US Navy owns some 3.3 million acres of land along with bases in over a dozen foreign lands.

The US spends some $700 billion a year on "defense" compared to $190 billion a year for China, the world's 2nd largest military spender. Iran spent $7 billion.

The NSA (National Security Agency) intercepts, daily, 4-7 times the amount of information held within the Library of Congress.

Of the nearly $800 billion we spent in Iraq some 600,000 civilians were killed, yet only 23,000 "insurgents" were and the number of attacks do not seem to have changed a great deal. This demands that we rethink our tactics and the reasons why people attack us. The notion that it's because we're free or rich simply doesn't pass muster. I do not recall any attacks against Switzerland or Fiji.

The problem isn't that our military is too small or weak or even could become potentially weak. The problem is engaging in multiple, non-declared, wars and policies that directly harm the security of the United States.

A little bit of history will show you that it was our direct involvements in the affairs of other nations that led them to being our enemies. For example, there have been over 50 years of non-stop meddling in the sovereign affairs of Iran, including the overthrow of a duly elected government.

We trained, supplied and paid for Bin Laden as well as gave him cause for concern due to our military presence in Saudi Arabia.

We have maintained strong sanctions and military threats against Cuba and North Korea for decades and yet the only thing it's done has caused those nations (and others) to unit together against what they see as a common foe. On top of strengthening their leadership it has also led to the deaths of millions in famine and other disasters.

However, if you take the case of Vietnam, after loosing 50,000 American lives we decided brute force wasn't the answer. Today we actively trade with them and tourism is on the rise. A similar case for peace can easily be made if you look at the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both nations had the capability of destroying one another and the USSR made many similar statements about our destruction as Iran has made about us and others. However, instead of invading, we had a leader with enough wisdom to talk.

The US does not have the moral or legal authority to lay claim to any territory other than our own nor do we have the right to dictate what other nations can do, even if we don't like it.

I urge you to reconsider your plan for massive military buildup, your ideas of un-ending warfare and to please recognize that sometimes when the US does something it causes harm and instead of promoting those policies we should step back from them and look to other options which will save lives. Sec. of State Albright may have thought the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi civilians was justified during our 10 year bombing campaign in the 1990s but I assure you, your Mormon faith does not and neither do the American people.

--Jacob Bogle

For additional information about Americas thirst for peace please check out this link:
www.wecanwin.org

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Herman Cain, Real Change or Status-quo "Lite"?

Herman Cain entered the race as an underdog. His personality quickly garnered him a number of supporters and his plain speaking and lack of political correctness made it sound like Mr. Cain was a new kind of candidate, a candidate not part of the establishment and someone who might actually shake up the system. And if elected, could put America on the right track.

During the first several months of the campaign he had great difficulty breaking into double digits in national polls and was usually listed 5^th or 6^th out of 9 main candidates. Despite the small showings there was a lot of talk about him and his ideas from many leading media outlets and popular radio talk shows. However it wasn’t until the debate in Florida where he talked about his personal triumph over cancer and was able to talk more about his “9-9-9” tax plan that brought him great success in the Florida GOP straw poll where he won with 37% of the vote; his nearest rival, Rick Perry, came in with only 15%.

The Florida straw poll results brought about a flurry of media attention and were seen as a possible GOP establishment “stamp-of-approval” given the fact that the poll voters were mostly state GOP members and local leaders. Some even suggested, before the poll, that whoever won would get the party nomination.

Cain’s surge issued a challenge to all to re-think his candidacy and signaled, to some, that it was time he became “top-tier”. Despite raising very little money, having no political experience and admitting on several occasions his lack of knowledge on certain topics, this simple win pushed him to the top in the media’s eye and soon after he was tied with Rick Perry for 2^nd place nationally.

Of course in the two weeks after the Florida debate the entire race seemed to shake up. Romney returned to first place, Perry fell by over 10 points, and Cain and Newt Gingrich displaced Ron Paul landing him in 5^th place. However, none of this really matters if the message behind the candidate is flawed or just plain bad.

With this apparent shake-up it becomes increasingly important to take an in-depth look at the positions of Herman Cain and allow the public to decide in the end who is and isn’t the best candidate.
After 8 years of G.W. Bush and nearly 3 years of Obama America is ready for real change, but not change for the sake of change, positive change leading the nation in the best direction. If Cain is now top-tier and may become the Republican nominee we must ask ourselves, does Cain offer real solutions or is he simply another candidate defending the status-quo Americans are so tired of, only in a “lite” version?

1. Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan is very simple and because of that it has a lot of appeal. One of the “9s” is a federal sales tax which is added on top of state and local sales taxes. There are 45 states that have some form of a sales tax with many states charging an average of 7% and in Illinois the maximum is a whopping 11.5% tax. This plan is billed as one to level the playing field and create a “fair” tax system. What many don’t realize is that the richest Americans spend less overall as a percentage of their income than the poorest so in reality lower-income families will end up paying a greater share of their income to sales taxes than will the richest. Any plan that adds taxes to everyday items like food and clothing is a tax that will hurt middle and lower income families far more than those with higher incomes. And while a 9% income tax may sound great the reality is for millions of Americans you will end up paying more in taxes. The very poorest Americans pay less than 3% in income taxes and then usually end up getting a refund and pay, for the year, a net tax of 0%. Under his plan these most vulnerable will end up paying 3 times their current tax rate and won’t be getting anything back.

For upper-middle and high income families his 9-9-9 plan works out very good but for most Americans, and the poorest, it only amounts to less money for bills and more money to the government.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-10-10/herman-cain-9-9-9-tax-plan/50723976/1

2. American was founded on the idea of freedom for all and the right to worship as one sees fit. The 1^st amendment isn’t something you can apply to one group but not another, everyone has the freedom of religion. You would think a presidential candidate would understand this and a conservative candidate would hold it most dear to his heart. Sadly, Cain has allowed personal prejudice to cloud his judgment and would support communities that would try and limit the 1^st amendment. Hatred and misunderstandings aside peaceful Muslims have every right to build mosques and preach Islam. Under Cain it seems Americans should have the right to ban mosques which is a direct violation of the Constitution. Herman Cain has also said on several occasions that he doesn’t trust Muslims, wouldn’t appoint them and feels they aren’t as loyal as any other group. This is a gross showing of hatred and no amount of backpedaling can cover up the vial words he said.
When you misunderstand or simply don’t respect the spirit of the Constitution and when you single out entire segments of the population you have lost any credibility to lead the nation. The saying “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” might prove prophetic when culling civil rights for “security”.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0711/Cain_Americans_should_have_right_to_ban_mosques.html

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-on-communities-banning-mosques-yes-they-have-a-right-to-do-that

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-digs-deeper-on-fox-many-muslims-%E2%80%98are-not-dedicated-to-this-country%E2%80%99

3. Cain has also flip-flopped on the issue of the assassination of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. While al-Awlaki may have been a bad guy he was still a citizen and the government is prevented by the Constitution from taking the life of a citizen without a trial. In America simply being accused of something is not the same as being convicted and this is another concept anyone who wants to lead must understand. The fundamental right to life and trial must never be withheld from any American because it opens the door for far worse. History has shown us time and time again that the only outcome of execution without trial, of picking who has rights and who doesn’t, is tyranny.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9256-herman-cain-flip-flops-on-killing-of-awlaki

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/herman-cain-flip-flopped-on-the-killing-of-anwar-al-awlaki/246084

4. Herman Cain used to be the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and has said that the FED needs no audit. In fact he said that if the public wanted to know something all we had to do was ask. This is something the American public has tried to do, as has congress, but with little success. The Federal Reserve is the most secretive part of our government and is also one of the most powerful. It actively engages in activities with no congressional oversight, and has no real mandate to answer for any errors it makes. It spends more money than congress and is responsible for the devaluation of currency. The FEDs activities are seen as so corrupt and suspicious that 18 Senators and 183 Representatives have co-sponsored HR 459 and S 202 the “Audit the Fed” bill. The National Tax Payers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Young Americans for Liberty, the Center for Fiscal Responsibility and Freedom Works (along with many others) have all advocated an audit of the FED. Yet Chairman Cain sees little reason to, after all the FED is an open book in his eyes.

http://theintelhub.com/2011/05/08/herman-cain-exposed-no-need-to-audit-the-federal-reserve

http://www.auditthefed.com

4. Abortion is an issue that ignites the passion of many Americans both for and against but one area where most agree is that in the case of incest or rape woman should have the right to get an abortion. Herman Cain on the other hand does not. He even signed a pledge saying he would ban all abortions even in those extreme cases.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/herman-cain-abortion-planned-parenthood-2004-campaign_n_996631.html

5. One skill a president must have is the ability to connect with the people diplomatically, especially if the main national problem is strongly affecting the domestic population. In the past he has come out against Muslims and then feigned an apology. During an interview when asked about the “Occupy Wall Street” movement he said “Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks -- if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself.” Several days later he backpedaled and said that the comments were only aimed at the protesters and then later he said that the comment wasn’t aimed at the people but was an attempt to say “Washington is the problem” and that the protesters should move their efforts there. But the truth is a president needs to say what he/she means and needs to be careful when chastising the populace. Nothing Cain said during the original comment would lead one to think that he wasn’t blaming the 14 million un-employed for their joblessness. For a man who tries to be the underdog who made millions from nothing he sure has a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth and forgets that it was both Washington and Wall Street lobbyists who played a large role in the economic downturn.
http://thyblackman.com/2011/10/06/raising-cain-herman-cain%E2%80%99s-irrational-ideology

There are many other issues that if examined shows Herman Cain to be nothing more than a big government, pro-war candidate who only pretends to be different. Herman Cain said the economy was fine before the collapse, he supported the bailouts, supports the continuation of wars, refuses any form of diplomacy with N. Korea (which only leaves force), and said that we need more leaders like President Bush.

It is more than clear that what we don’t need is 4 more years of war and economic hardship and that is all we will get under Cain. During the debate at Dartmouth on 10/11/11 he said that he doesn’t care about what bills can be passed he only cares about what will work. Even if we ignore the fact his tax plan won’t work it matters little if something doesn’t get passed into law. With each passing day we see how unprepared Cain is to lead and how out of step with reality he seems to be.

There is only one answer, Ron Paul. He saw the recession before it occurred and offered real solutions. He understands the root-cause of terrorism and respects the Constitution. Only Ron Paul realizes that without a strong currency any discussion on taxes, jobs or the economy will be flawed and that to secure our economic future we must re-examine the Federal Reserve system. And unlike everyone else Ron Paul has remained consistent and voted consistently for 30 years with no scandals, no special interests and has never voted for an unbalanced budget, doesn’t participate in the lucrative congressional retirement program, never voted to raise taxes and has never voted for an increase in power for the Executive Branch.

Jacob Bogle 10/12/11

www.WeCanWin.org and www.RonPaul2012.co

Pro-Bush era: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOLsgnM21dM

Pro-bailouts: http://004eeb5.netsolhost.com/hc133.htm (article by Herman Cain)

Pro-war: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=98516477&category=views&id=20110526130557

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=98516477&category=views&id=20110509170146

Additional:

http://www.tomwoods.com/cain

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/06/334170/herman-cain-top-10

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Obama's Broken Promises and Ron Paul

Obama’s Broken Promises

In 2008, Barack Obama was elected president on a message of change and hope. Despite his limited experience in government and non-existent experience in business he was elected with the largest popular vote in US history¹. And with Americans being tired of a multi-year war, troubled economic outlook there was every reason to look at this young, magnetic and up-beat person with a sense of hope. Finally, a man who wasn't from a political dynasty, who came from nothing bringing a message most Americans had wanted for decades…change you could believe in. Of course few really thought about what his idea of “change” meant. He may have been inexperienced, but your average voter saw in him potential. Little did they expect to get a president who reacted rather than led, who denied the notion that America was not the same as every other country^a, who would fill his administration with and take advice from radicals, known terrorists² and special interest groups.

While campaign blips like “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”³ caused some to question this brave new world he planned, the promise of transparency, clean energy independence, secure public services, ending wars etc. was far too great to offer any real obstacle. He made many promises and a tired, desperate America was ready to believe, no matter the cost.

Obama had a very large following of young voters, college students and far-left liberals. Their focus on war, energy and domestic policy made promises like closing Guantanamo Bay and expanding government “protections” seemed to solidify the idea that Obama was an honest man who would do what he said. There has never been a candidate who was able to fulfill, entirely, every promise made but the thought of out-right lies never crossed their mind.

So why is it that in July 2011, half-way through his presidency, are the people who supported him most leaving the “Obama train” in droves? And even worse (from the left’s perspective) why is it that no name candidates in 2008 like Ron Paul are today coming within the margin of error to tying or even beating him in some polls?⁴ The answer is fairly simple, Americans have seen the kind of change Obama desires and even die-hard supporters can’t ignore the ever growing list of broken promises, hypocrisy and lack luster leadership since his first days in office.

The following is a list of examples that have been cited by multiple sources⁵ as of 7/2011:

1. Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners.-Broken
2. End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000. -Broken
3. End no-bid contracts above $25,000. -Broken
4. Sign the Employee Free Choice Act (pro-union). -Broken
5. Prevent companies in bankruptcy from giving company executives bonuses. -Broken
6. Allow imported prescription drugs. -Broken
7. Mandate autism treatment in insurance coverage. -Broken
8. Close Guantanamo Bay. -Broken
9. Double the Peace Corps. -Broken
10. Allow 5 days for the public to read and comment on bills before signing them. -Broken
11. Create rules against lobbying and political appointees. -Broken
12. Urge States to treat same-sex couples with the same equality as heterosexuals in their adoption laws. -Broken
13. Restore the Superfund program (cleans up highly polluted sites). -Broken
14. Support a human mission back to the moon by 2020. -Broken
15. Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels. -Broken
16. Require a “plug-in” fleet at the White House. -Broken
17. Recognize the Armenian genocide. -Broken
18. No tax increases on families making less than $250,000/yr. -Broken
19. Televise all health care reform talks on C-SPAN. – When John McCain asked Obama about this in 2010 Obama replied “the campaign is over, John” *^a
20. Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in his first year. -Broken
21. Restrict warrantless wiretaps. -Broken
22. Secure the borders. Obama “We need tougher border security…” Janet Napolitano later announced in 2010 that $50 million had in planned stimulus funds for border security had been diverted to other project.*^a
23. Enforce “PAYGO” rules. -Broken
24. Sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. -Broken
25. Restore habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants. -Broken
26. Make White House communications about regulatory policy-making public. -Broken
27. Include sexual orientation and gender identity in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. -Broken
28. Increase the minimum wage to $9.50/hr by 2011. -Broken

Additional actions that went against his promises or that have hurt America.

1. Added a war in Libya and Yemen. –Lied about stopping undeclared wars.
2. Said we won’t be taking an active role in Libya or maintaining the “no-fly zone”. –Lied. We have spent over $500 million in Libya and led dozens of bombing runs.
3. Gave $2 billion to Brazil for off-shore drilling. –Gave it to Brazil soon after the “Deepwater Horizons” oil spill and had called for halting all US drilling for environmental causes. Brazil however has a very poor record in environmental protection.

(Note: This is simply a list of broken promises and hypocritical actions by Obama. It does not mean that I do or don’t support them)

All of this makes it clear that Obama was never fit to be president and that to allow him a further four years at the head of the most powerful nation in world history is irresponsible. However, all is not lost. Despite the Democrats being saddled with an exposed message of busted promises and failed leadership America is not condemned (should voters see the light) to continue living in a nation nearing an abyss. There is another choice and a choice who has proven leadership, experience, and trustworthiness - Ron Paul.

Even though few in national leadership are actually in it for the nation Ron Paul has been a staunch supporter and defender of the American way, the Constitution, limited government and personal responsibility. As is often the case, the mainstream media and political machines have tried to down play Dr. Paul’s accomplishments and message because they’re afraid of losing power. Nevertheless, voters are tired of being told what to do and who to vote for, and despite being called “radical” or “not having a chance” the reality on the ground is far different.

For more than 20 years Dr. Paul has maintained the same message, has voted consistently more than any other person in congress and his predictions that were laughed at in 1998 and 2008 have now come true and even those who laughed at him are now quoting Dr. Paul and trying to be the new “Dr. No”. Of course there can only be one and Ron Paul, while shining above all other candidates in message, truth, character, and principle is now beginning to take the lead in the polls, among the people and when paired with Obama levels the field. As proof that Dr. Paul’s candidacy is beating the establishments attempt at marginalization I’d like to give you a few facts.

During the 2011 2^nd quarter fundraising period Ron Paul raise $4.5 million, coming in second to Romney (a multi-millionaire and big government supporter). Despite coming in second in total donations Paul out raised all candidates in MS, ND and OK and also out raised Romney in MN. Paul was the second highest fundraiser in 26 other states⁶.

With his message of peace and smart international relations (as well as being the only candidate to serve in the military) Rep. Paul out raised all candidates in donations from active military personnel⁷.

One of the biggest issues people point to for his “un-electability” is Rep. Paul’s desire to end entitlement programs. Dr. Paul, who is a working physician, believes that programs like Social Security are unconstitutional and would develop a plan to allow those entering the workforce to opt out of it, keep those who rely on it now on a solvent Social Security program and then gradually phase it out without hurting the elderly and disabled. As David Weidner of the Wall Street Journal said “Mr. Paul faces an electorate that, like it or not, is dependent on Washington. Nearly $2 of every $10 in personal income, about $2.3 trillion…It's hard for most of us to vote against programs so obviously boosting our bottom lines.”⁸

Of course, that’s the whole point. Nearly 1 in 4 Americans are on some sort of welfare, far above the number intended when these programs were instituted under FDR. Which means either the US is rapidly turning into a third world country or those in charge understand something most seem not too, if you give people money and cause them to become reliant on you then they are less likely to limit your power and will in fact be more willing to give you more power. When we surrender our liberties for “protection” and when we give up our obligation to self responsibility then we lose both liberty and protection and we become a virtual slave to those who provide us services.

As we have seen in Europe the more you give people the less willing they are to work, to further educate themselves and to provide for their own well-being. Today 60 million people take entitlements, nearly 45% of the working population pay no income taxes and we have allowed ourselves to be subjected to government sponsored molestation under the TSA. Ron Paul wants to reverse this and give us back the power to live our own lives, succeed by our own merit, own our failures and maintain our liberties.

In the polls Rep. Paul has the following record**:

WON – Republican Leadership Conference Straw Poll, New Orleans. Paul 612 votes, Romney 74

WON – CPAC Straw Poll, Paul 30%, Romney 23%

WON – Texas GOP Poll, Paul 22%, Gov. Perry 17%, Romney >10%

Paul 37% vs. Obama 41%, Rasmussen 7/2011. In this poll Obama scores lowest against any candidate when matched against Ron Paul.

Paul 50% vs. Obama 50%, Harris Interactive 7/2011.

With Obama’s record of lies and failed accomplishments and Ron Paul’s 21 year history of consistent voting and intellectual honesty there can be no question about who should be the next president, Ron Paul.

Please show your support and visit www.RonPaul2012.com, www.RonPaul.com, www.DailyPaul.com www.RonPaulSignBomb.com

Jacob Bogle, 7/30/2011 jacob_bogle@yahoo.com www.jacobboglewrites.com

References