 "Photo:")
This letter is in response to Daniel Potter's article entitled "Ron Paul unusual, unfavorable" [Nov. 19]. Potter has tapped into the dreadfully hip trend of smearing Dr. Paul, to which many pseudo -journalistic pundits have taken a liking. As usual, it is filled with all the trite "truthiness" of the Colbert Report, minus the humor. I'll stick to the most pertinent facts.
It is unfortunately accurate to say that Ron Paul is unusual, because it has been quite some time since a politician has had the moral soundness to be honest with the people. Likewise, it is a sad state of affairs to suggest that someone who fulfills their oath of office by strictly adhering to the Constitution that they were sworn to uphold, is unfavorable.
Granted, the Constitution is an imperfect document, but I think most would agree that it is the best mankind has produced as of yet, especially in terms of listing the inalienable rights bestowed unto humanity, in spite of their government.
Therefore, as Dr. Paul points out, if you choose to ignore certain parts of the Constitution without amending it, ultimately you nullify the document entirely. Ron has stated numerous times that he regrettably votes down bills he would otherwise support, simply because he does not have the constitutional authority to do so.
Speaking of limited authority, Ron Paul is the only candidate who seems to understand the role of the President of the United States. It may be surprising to some, but the executive branch is not equivalent to an unbridled dictatorship. However, the PATRIOT Act, along with some other tasty little nuggets - i.e. Military Commissions Act, Real ID Act, etc. has literally legalized just such a situation. Right now, HR 1955, a bill lovingly entitled "The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" has passed the House of Representatives, and is on its way to the Senate. This bill vaguely states that any person who "acts, or promotes action against the U.S. Government" is a terrorist.
Essentially, this is a 'thought crime' bill, aimed at squashing the healthy, patriotic dissent that we have enjoyed since 1776. Of course some will argue, "This could never happen here; that sounds like something Hitler would do".
Hitler did these things. Even he didn't have the balls to put it down on paper, and any lawyer will tell you that the government doesn't pass laws that they don't expect to enforce at some point.
Back to 2007 from 1984, the President actually has very limited power under the Constitution. The President is Commander in Chief of the military - not the people, and as such has the authority to bring the troops home as soon as militarily possible, and drastically alter our aggressive foreign policy.
According to almost every nationwide poll, this is something that 70 percent of the American people want, and therefore sounds quite favorable to me. As for the vast number of government departments and benefits that Ron Paul would supposedly make magically vanish, he will be the first to tell you that he has no authority to single-handedly do this.
Congress, through the will of the people would be responsible for changing or completely doing away with these programs and departments. The President's job is to inform and educate the American people, and to influence Congress to do the people's bidding. However, the President does have the authority to write an executive order, which would reverse previous executive orders that have obliterated the Bill of Rights, and would restore our Constitutional freedoms.
On the subject of free markets and the economy, Dr. Paul has some very interesting ideas that may seem "radical" at first glance. But upon a closer, more open-minded examination, these ideas not only make perfect sense, but they are in line with the Constitutional role of government. Yet again, these changes would not happen with a mere flick of a switch from President Paul; this could only come about through an informed public demanding that Congress change the laws.
I must point out some obvious facts that are often overlooked regarding government involvement in the economy. Firstly, a free market system is not some willy-nilly free-for-all to let corporate interests run amok. There are still laws, and under this system corporate malfeasance would be punished, instead of rewarded through government subsidies via the taxpayers.
The Halliburtons and Enrons of the world can only exist in a system in which there is collusion between corporate interests and the state, and I think we all have seen just how well the government has protected the people from such calamity under the current system.
It is also interesting, and frightening to note that the term "Corporatism" was the preferred way to describe this joining of businesses and the state according to Benito Mussolini. He suggested that this was the more proper way to refer to another term he is famous for coining, "Fascism". In Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the state took control of the corporations. In present day America, through the tireless efforts of lobbyists we see the same trend occurring in reverse, but with the same effect.
In closing, it is not my wish to belittle Potter personally, as he is merely misinformed, as myself and many others have been before. Instead, I think of it as a quantum leap of sorts, trying to make right what once went wrong. I applaud him, however for simply describing us as "rabid" instead of suggesting that we are domestic terrorists, for whom the military should be deployed to control, as Glen Beck recently implied. It is true that we are passionate, but this passion comes from the fact that we are aware of what is at stake in the coming election.
Overall, the Ron Paul supporters that I have met are the most informed, and diverse group of people you could possibly imagine. There are a few people in the movement who might be described as "on the fringe" by those intent on maintaining the status quo, but the unifying factor that brings us all together is the love of our individual liberty. Even those "crazy conspiracy theorists" can detect when someone is telling them the truth, and that is something any patriotic American would find refreshing from a politician.
If upon further investigation, Potter decides to join us, he would be welcomed with no hard feelings. Until then, though it is certainly difficult to define, the substitution of trivialized disinformation for facts is definitely not Rock n' Roll.
Be the first to comment on this article!