“A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds.” - Mark Twain

Towson, MD - He got an enthusiastic standing ovation from the capacity crowd when he walked out onto the Kraushaar auditorium stage, at Goucher College, just north of Baltimore City. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was the featured speaker at the school’s “President’s Forum Lecture,” on April 14, 2008. First thing he did was to introduce his wife of 51 years, Carol, who was seated in the audience. They have five children and three of them, like himself, are doctors. He said they also have “18 grandchildren” and he knows all of their names, but that “she knows all their birthdays, as well.” Although, it’s clear that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is way ahead of the pack in the Republican Party’s race for the presidency, Rep. Paul said his campaign “isn’t over until we have a convention and a nominee.” That line brought a wild burst of applause from the mostly youthful audience.

Here’s a guy, I thought, who’s comfortable with himself. No pretenses. No prepared speech. No notes. Just up there winging it. He knows what he wants to say and he says it. He reminded me a lot of Jimmy Stewart, the late actor. Incidentally, both Rep. Paul and Stewart were from the same great state--Pennsylvania. As a young man, the Congressman, now 72 years old, had a milk route in his home town of Green Spring, not far from Pittsburgh. One of pro baseball’s legends, a member of the Hall of Fame from the Pittsburgh Pirates, was a customer of his--Honus Wagner. (1) (Do you have any idea what a Honus Wagner baseball card (T206) is worth today? Think megabucks!) Rep. Paul went on to Gettysburg College and then chose medicine as a career. He graduated from Duke University’s School of Medicine. (2)

Rep. Paul said one of the reasons he is running for president is to have the opportunity to discuss with the American people issues that he insists are “vital” to our fading democracy. One of those seminal matters, he underscored, is “individual liberty.” Rep. Paul, unlike pseudo liberals, such as Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), stood up for our rights in the U.S. Congress and voted against the draconian U.S.A. Patriot Act. He also opposed the Bush-Cheney Gang’s formation of the Homeland Security Agency, which he labeled a “gigantic bureaucracy.” He has repeatedly challenged the administration over its unlawful spying on the American people, the gutting of Habeas Corpus, and the emergence of a fear-dominated surveillance state. Rep. Paul, a champion of the U.S. Constitution, said: “Individual liberty has been neglected in this country...The Founders understood this issue and that is what ‘limited government’ is all about.” He believes, too, that “Habeas Corpus,” the ancient Great Writ, via England, now centuries old, “should apply” to the detainees at Gitmo. (3)

On the war, Rep. Paul voted, in Oct., 2002, against the U.S. Congress delegating the power to use military force against Iraq to President George W. Bush. He said that, as soon as the Bush-Cheney Gang took office in Jan., 2001, “and that was long before 9/11,” they were looking to bring about “regime change” in Iraq. He also believes that the “Israeli government and the Neocons want the U.S. to attack Iran.” (3) Take that Sen. Joe Lieberman!

Meanwhile, across the Party aisle, a hawkish Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), a wannabe president, not only strongly endorsed the Iraq War, but she has continue to vote to fund it, including supporting Bush’s badly flawed “Surge” strategy. She argues, like the Neocon V.P., Dick Cheney, that Iran is not only a threat to Israel, but to the U.S., as well. Rep. Paul said: “I voted against the [Iraq] war and right now I vote to bring the troops home...We don’t need these perpetual wars.” (4) He reminded the audience, that according to the economic experts, the price tag for the Iraq conflict could come in at “three to five trillion dollars.”

Now, the latter points sound like something Noam Chomsky, a rabid anti-imperialist, would make. Yet, when Rep. Paul makes them, they’re ignored by most of the Chomskyites. Go figure! With respect to the Neocons, Rep. Paul emphasized: “They claim we have ‘a moral duty’ to spread our goodness around the world. How can you have a ‘moral’ issue and spread it with force, guns and bombs? That cancels out all of your ‘moral’ imperatives.”

As for the widespread American Empire, with its 714 military bases around the globe and locations in 130 countries, Rep. Paul, a/k/a “Dr. No,” is against that, too. (5) He advocates “a noninterventionist foreign policy.” He even supports trade with Castro’s Cuba. What an enlightened idea! Rep. Paul is also deeply fearful that the ongoing Iraq debacle will end just like the blood- stained Vietnam War disaster did, with the U.S. troops leaving that country under “dire circumstances.” Will history repeat itself?

Rep. Paul said the American Empire, particularly its role as a global cop, is costing taxpayers “one trillion dollars a year,[and that] we’re less safe and less secure today.” (6) He urged a new foreign policy where the U.S. will be “friends with [all] people...have diplomatic relations, trade and travel.” Rep. Paul added that it is long past the time for the U.S. “to get out of the Middle East.” (7) He also said that “the U.S. should talk with Iran, like we did with the Soviet Union, during the ‘Cold War.’” (3)

After Rep. Paul’s speech, and during the Q&A period, the President of Goucher, Sanford Ungar, who served as moderator of the event, asked the Congressman this question: “Who do you think is going to be elected president?” After pausing for a moment, Rep. Paul answered: “Obama!” Then, he quickly added, with a broad smile on his face: “But, check him out, closely.” (7)

Rep. Paul is right on at least three of the most important issues of our day: getting out of the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home, now; defending and preserving individual liberty; and bringing an end to the American Empire before it bankrupts our treasury and drags the country into a deep recession. (8) In fact, he sounded a lot like Ralph Nader to me. On many other issues, however, like immigration, to name just one, I disagree with him.

If we would have had a majority of Constitutionalists, like Rep. Paul, in the Congress, to vote against the Iraq War, 4,039 U.S. troops would still be alive today and the hell that is Iraq could have been avoided. In any event, if the slippery Hillary Clinton does end up wresting the Democratic nomination from Sen. Obama, via manipulating the “Super Delegates,” a vibrant Third Party ticket of Nader-Paul and/or Paul-Nader might surface. Who knows? Surely, there are growing numbers in this country who are sick and tired of the Special-Interest-driven antics of the DemRepublicrats.

Notes:

1. http://www.honuswagner.com/

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

3. http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYFAzzGN-9Y

5. Chalmers Johnson’s “The Sorrows of Empire.”

6. http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/04/10/p24695#more24695

7. http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/%24File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf and http://wrmea.org/

8. http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/50312 and

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/56910

©2008, William Hughes, All Rights Reserved.

William Hughes is a video and print journalist. His videos can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=liamh2.

Email Contact: liamhughes@comcast.net.

Ron Paul advocates the elimination of welfare.

Welfare was started, not by the government, but by communities that saw the need. It was sporadic and unreliable. The New Deal created a range of social welfare programs that helped alleviate the effects of poverty. The existing legacies of the New Deal are Medicare and Social Security, as well as an alphabet soup of federal departments.

Ron Paul is part of a faction that seeks to eliminate Medicare and Social Security. He wants us to own private pensions and purchase private insurance.

Before we had these two universal savings/welfare funds, older folks, and people unable to work, would die on the streets from illness, or, not wishing to burden their struggling children, would commit suicide. The disabled begged for money, and considered sub-human.

Recent welfare reform has restricted welfare benefits, and put more people into the workforce. Despite this progress, poverty has not decreased. People report higher levels of hunger and homelessness than before welfare reform -- people are working, but have no home and not enough money for food. Ron Paul's policies would likely increase homelessness and increase hunger.

Ron Paul's anti-immigrant position was adopted for this campaign. Libertarians are generally pro-immigration, and even against immigration restrictions that have created our large population of second-class immigrants.

One reason why we don't have strong penalties for hiring unauthorized workers is because our system of identifying who can and cannot work, is inefficient and incomplete. Our data is bad. If you increased enforcement, many people (who are citizens) would be denied their right to work, because employers would terminate employment upon reciept of the no-match letter. Over time, this would lead to racial discrimination against people with Spanish surnames.

To resolve this problem, the government would need to create an accurate database of all people eligible to work. This would be a single, unified database, of all the people in the United States, and it would tell you when you were eligible to work. It would be integrated with the state databases that track births and deaths, or it would supplant these databases and states would switch to collecting but not storing data.

To make sure the data is accurate, citizens and legal residents would have to report to a data collection authority that would verify your fingerprints, retina print, or some other physical identifier, take an updated photo, scan your current state identification, and maybe a credit card, pay stubs, or 1099s. This information would be compared to the existing records, and discrepancies noted (and you could submit explanations).

We'd assent to this process, because we all want to work.

In the Ron Paul future, we'd assent, because we'd fear becoming a member of the growing homeless population, who were unable to find work, and not being recorded in the government computer. They'd be living in expanding shanty towns on the edge of the metropolis, coming into town to pick cans and bottles, and collect building materials for their homes. At night, these favelas would be terrorized by organized crime which would turn the border between the shanty town and the "above ground" legally employed city into a "free zone" where people could spend their cash on drugs, prostitution, and other vices.

THAT is Ron Paul's America.

Not much different than today, but worse.

Commentor "mous" makes several assumptions based on limited information coming from Ron Paul. Funny that with John McCain as the ONLY possible option for the Republican nomination Ron Paul has near ZERO chance of being President, yet people remain stalwart in their chances to discredit his views based on fear-mongering..

The Republican party loves McCain because he is dumb as all get out and doesn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims, yet he can sing catchy Beach Boys tunes about "Bomb, bomb Iran" and other dandies sure to make the idjit Republican party loyalists foam at the mouth in hopes of another 100 years of military incursions via FOXs news remotes..

The Republican party hates Ron Paul because he is honest, intelligent AND his ethics do not permit him to lie and cover for the typical Republican party agenda of a police state for the benefit of large corporations. Honesty and truthtelling is like sunlight for the Republican Vampire Cabal, and Ron Paul can consider himself a vampire slayer for all his truthfulness, even if the Presidency for RP remains elusive beyond belief..

If we believe comments by "mous" we can imagine that the day after Ron Paul enters the Presidency he suddenly revokes the benefits of millions of impoverished mothers and throws them out on the streets. It is highly unlikely that even if RP were elected, he would ever dare to perform so harsh an action..

Removal of CORPORATE welfare, now that is a subject that we could discuss. Ron Paul favors removing the U.S. taxpayer subsidies for large agribusiness corporations, fast food outlets and military weapons contracters among others. This is where the largest piece of the pie is going, taxpayer subsidies to corporations, and RP made in clear that he would not pursue the welfare mothers and those accustomed to a life of dependency on state handouts and go after corporate welfare first..

Gradual changes following the removal of multinational corporations after their subsidies are revoked, smaller locally owned businesses would take hold and actually provide their communities with positive job options, not menial wage slavery at McDonalds, Wal-mart, etc.. as so many people are coerced into..

Ron Paul also is in favor of removing the U.S. military bases from the soils of other nations (in addition to 100% troop withdrawal from Iraq!), as we have no right to perpetually occupy so many other foreign countries with our standing armies. The days of post WW2 U.S. global empire building are becoming ever more expensive and unpopular, and Ron Paul is wise enough to recognize this and brave enough to speak publicly about it. We have not heard so progressive and impressive statement from ANY other candidates, not even "ultra-leftist" Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, though she would probably agree with RP on this. Then of course when RP actually makes a statement (to remove all U.S. military bases from foreign soil) that out does the leftist liberals he is deemed an isolationist nutcase by the corporate media and the knee-jerk leftists who follow suit!! How convieeeeenient..

Then there's the joined at the hip issues of NAFTA/WTO & immigration, especially immigration from our neighboring country of Mexico. Here again the collusion between the neo-conservatives AND the neo-liberals who favor the status quo of NAFTA UBER ALLES are attacking Ron Paul from both "sides" of their political divide. The neo-conservatives want racial scapegoating of Mexicans, barbed wire US/MEX border walls, and a Homeland Security virtual police state with regards to immigration because they refuse to repeal NAFTA/WTO and want to maximize corporate profits from below minimum wage labor of undocumented migrants..

AND the neo-liberals want a "borderless" society between the U.S. and Mexico where Mexicans can leave their homes in Mexico and work in the agribusiness fields of the U.S. with some niceties put in place to ease their discomfort at being displaced from their land and living in the northern regions of the americas (U.S.) as perpetual wage slaves..

Of course BOTH the neo-conservatives AND the neo-liberals frequently and purposefully miss the point that the free trade policies of NAFTA and WTO are creating conditions of economic instability in Mexico and points south, that lack of protective tariffs in Mexico allows subsidized U.S. GMO corn (Cargill, ADM, Con Agra, etc..) to flood the Mexican markets and drive the smaller Mexican maize (corn) farmers OFF of their land plots or ejidos and into the immigration stream where they labor for the agribusiness monocultures of el norte. Rather than try to prevent the displacement of Mexican farmers by repealing NAFTA/WTO source of inequality we are repeatedly told that we must accept the conditons of inequality and then rejoice when the Mexicans come to el norte and works the fields for below minimum wage..

If we disagree or question whether the Mexicans would rather stay home if conditions were different then we're labeled "nativist" or "racist" or "ethno-supremicists" for denying them access to already limited jobs..

Mexican nationalists, Mexica and MECHA groups are claiming concerns for the welfare of the indigenous peoples of North America and feel that "Aztlan" will be a better option for the local indigenous than current Euro-american colonialism. Like either the nation of Mexico OR the U.S. existed prior the arrival of Cristobal Colon from Spain. Do Aztec reconstructionists of Aztlan really represent a more fair and balanced nation state if they feel their "mythical homeland" is in the north of Mexico? What about the actual physical homelands of the indigenous peoples of the north american southwest, (Dineh, Apache, Tohono Oohdam, Cocopah, etc..) should they live under Aztec rule of Aztlan? Just sounds like another "Manifest Destiny" claim of Euro-american supremecy, if now with a Spanish mestizo nationalist twist..

If anything the "Aztlan" movement plays into the hands of the pro-NAFTA crowd as the further displacement of indigenous Mexicans (Zapotec, Seri, Zapatistas, etc..) into conscripted northern labor camps will continue provided that NAFTA remains in place. If assimilation of the diverse groups and languages of Mexico's indigenous populations is their goal via Aztlanian nationalism, they are doing a good job..

Then we have the "counter-protesters" of the "border wall" militias like SOS & the Minutemen, bands of useful idjits who feel that by playing tag and wrestling with migrants out in the deserts and ignoring NAFTA/WTO they are actually accomplishing anything. My advice to any serious "Minutemen" concerned about abuses of undocumented immigrants would be to get on the ball and start protesting the agribusiness corporations (Cargill, ADM, etc..), slaughterhouses and other corporations that profit from maintaining conditions of perpetual wage slavery for migrant workers (IF they become legal and join a labor union, THEN the corporations would need to pay them more, so it is "better" for corporations short term profit to have an ongoing flood of undocumented immigrants ready for exploitation.), unless of course you want to do volunteer work for the CIA, then just keep on scapegoating migrant farm workers without providing any background reasons for why this is happening, like the NAFTA/WTO "free trade" inequalities..

Interestingly enough the recently infamous "they're bitter" comment by Obama also mentioned "anti-trade" is his list of grievences experiences by workers in rural towns, and along with guns and religion appears to be a byproduct of ignorance. We all know that for Obama to be selected by the Democrats he needs to tread carefully on the WTO/NAFTA issue, so a few small digs at the rural folks who are so "anti-trade" and bitter will help him maintain his support from the neo-liberals who need NAFTA in place to hold onto their power..

This process of corporate media selection is seen by the words of his pastor Rev. Wright's allegations of "pro-separatism" and "anti-Semitism" now used against Obama, as of the three stooges remaining he now represents the greatest threat to the corporations, so attacking him forces him to become defensive, thus we get the "bitter and anti-trade" comments by Obama spoken out of some desire to conform to the platform of the status quo..

BTW, i never had a problem with what the Rev. Wright said and feel his words ("America was built on racism") reflected the hard facts of life in the U.S. Maybe Obama was too quick to distance himself from Rev. Wright, and could have used this as a chance to further discuss race relations in the U.S., though this would have lost him his neo-liberal support system, and that always matters more than what some African-americans in south Chicago think or say..

On a side note, the concept of racial seperatism and a free nation for African-american self-governace in the southeastern U.S. states as suggested by the Nation of Islam and others isn't really such a bad idea either. We should take into consideration the preference of certain skin tones for various degrees of solar radiation and this is in harmony with what the NOI seperatists want. This needs to happen voluntarily and by the free will of the people, yet when looking at population demographics people of darker skin tones prefer sunny climates and lighter skinned people prefer climates with less strong sunlight. This is a physical reality that the federal integrationists refuse to acknowledge, it is easier for neo-liberals to paint the proponents of seperatism with the typical "racist" brush as name calling is always easier than honest and open dialogue..

Once again the two party system of psuedo-democracy has done it's job of narrowing the field by enabling the most moderate and flexible "benders" and the least truth telling candidates to shoot into positions of power while exiling the truthtellers (Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul) into lunatic obscurity. Bravo to all the knee-jerk leftists who discredited Ron Paul in imc and helped the corporate media with their job, maybe some nice cushy jobs exist for all the neo-libs who will find favor by showing their support for NAFTA and free trade..

If Ron Paul somehow managed to get elected, and made equal efforts to cut welfare for the poor, and corporate welfare, it would be welfare for the poor that would go first. This has been there trend for the past 30 years. Social welfare has been cut, over and over, and today, even Medicare is on the ropes.

Then, on the other side, look at the impressive bailout that was given to Bear Stearns, to allow them to be bought out rather than collapse. Look at how little the board of Enron suffered after lying to their stockholders, employees, and the public at large. Look at the grand no-bid contracts going to Cheney’s cronies.

Corporate welfare clearly has the edge here, and they’re using their revenues to pay lobbyists to arrange kickbacks for the politicians who support them.

If you look up the libertarian political positions, they fully support the destruction of Social Security and Medicare. Any libertarian will do everything possible to cut back social welfare.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism

You get these two things wrong.

These two “neo”s are two forms of capitalist expansion, and they go hand in hand. Neoconservatives want to use force to keep America the top dog, above China and India (and Japan, Germany, UK and Russia). Neoliberals want roughly the same thing, but with less (ideally no) bloodshed, but not without pain. They wish to change the economies of other countries so that they have certain characteristics:

- privatized social programs

- stronger private property rights (i.e. less eminent domain)

- property rights extended to foreign companies

- fiscal austerity to assure that loans are paid back, and bonds are solvent

- reduced power for labor unions, and no new environmental regulations

The neolib goals are roughly the Ron Paul and libertarian goal, too. The main difference between neoliberals and libertarians is that neolibs send people to change the government and economy (or have the CIA do it), and libertarians want the local people to do it on their own (inspired by libertarian propaganda).

Both neolibs and neocons are okay with reducing wages. Their position on wages -- the neolib position, the neocon position, and the libertarian position -- is that there should be no minimum wage; the market will find it’s own minimum.

Right now, all the different conservative factions are opposed to immigration. They’re taking this position to curry votes with the “angry white male” vote (which is increasingly female, too). These are what you might call the “nationalistic conservatives” or “nationalistic middle/working class,” and they’re not neocons, neolibs, or libertarians – but these three factions are trying to appeal to this vote. Taking an anti-immigrant position is an easy, racist tactic.

Libertarians take an anti-NAFTA position, too, but more on this later.

Normally, though, the neocon, neolib, and libertarian factions are all in favor of immigration. They like the fact that immigration, particularly unauthorized immigration, creates a low-cost labor pool that allows them to operate their businesses.

The main difference between neocons and neolibs regarding immigration is that neocons sometimes oppose it on the basis of culture. They want to maintain an Anglocentric, Western European culture. Neoliberals are more globalist, and are more open to the excitement of multiculturalism, at least as far as it contributes to the market. They don’t necessarily want to see a multiculture of political challengers to neoliberalism or market-based reforms.

Libertarians have traditionally been the most pro-immigration, and some are for “open borders.” Their current trend of joining up with anti-immigrant factions is an electoral tactic to gain votes.

So, if you look at these three positions, they aren’t that different. Neocons are the violent conservatives, neoliberals are the “carry a big stick” conservatives who are less violent, and libertarians like Ron Paul are isolationist neoliberals and are nonviolent.

The main libertarian objection to NAFTA is that it conflicts with their isolationism. They don’t disagree with many of the policy goals.

The nationalistic middle/working class objection to NAFTA (and neoliberalism in general) is not that it’s globalist, but that it dropped the trade barriers that propped up the industries that employed them at high wages. These are the “bitter” white folks of west PA, and across the country, that saw factory jobs move to Mexico. Then move to other countries.

There’s always competition to gain the support of this group, and it’s typically between the most “left” faction of the Democratic party, and the most “right” or fascist faction of the Republican party. The libertarian faction can’t really compete, because they are ideologically wedded to trade liberalization, but Ron Paul is trying.

(Their vote tends toward the center, and not to the extremes, because the centrists modify their message to be palatable to this constituency.)

It's wrong.

Integration and unity are the only things that bring the working class up. The idea that people naturally "stick with their own" is true, but that's because groups of people are in conflict and fear each other.