It is disheartening to see people who claim to be liberal or progressive so adamantly behind the candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul for the GOP presidential nomination. It is even worse to hear them say Paul is the best hope for restoring our Constitution to its proper place in the republic.
Paul is no savior and Paul is no constitutionalist. (I can say that after years of studying the Constitution in graduate school of one of America's elite universities under some of the finest constitutional minds in academia to become as knowledgeable about the Constitution as anyone, better than most, including Paul, who never studied constitutional law.)
Paul doesn't want to restore the Constitution as he and his "liberal" supporters claim. He wants to restore or honor only those portions of the Constitution that justify his extreme right-wing libertarian positions. He would ignore or remove those portions that enabled liberals and progressives to make this nation a better place for all, especially the lower classes. His voting record shows that.
Paul has made it abundantly clear that he opposes all forms of federal social programs and commercial regulation.
While Paul may not be able to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, unemployment insurance, workers' comp, workplace safety, antipollution laws, environmental protection, minimum wages, or other social programs that enrich the nation, he most certainly would do nothing to defend them or to enhance their productivity. And he would do nothing to enforce laws for those programs because he believes the federal government shouldn't be active in those areas, regardless of what powers the Constitution gives government to be active.
We have heard the Paul mantra many times before. If government would just go away, get off our backs, tax us almost nothing and leave us alone in freedom, we could all live a blissful life in a new Eden. That is crap.
We heard Cal Coolidge claim that tax cuts would create a roaring good time for all, but when the bill came due in 1929 there was no more roar. We heard Herbert Hoover claim that if government just went away and did nothing, the invisible hand of a free market would miraculously end an economic downturn that was destroying lives and businesses nationwide. Didn't happen.
We heard Ronald Reagan proclaim that if those pesky bank regulators would just leave honest banking executives alone, they would have us all living in mini-mansions alongside pristine golf courses in no time. Instead the savings-and-loan honchos looted their institutions leaving us with a $500-billion debt to pay off. And we ~ not the bankers ~ are paying that as demonstrated by the interest rate of one-tenth of one percent savers get on the money they have stashed in a bank account; assuming they have any cash to stash.
And we have heard Alan Greenspan claim that if bankers were left to their own devices they would never engage in activities that would bring shame to their profession. They were left alone by Greenspan and others in this administration and the result is the subprime mortgage lending schemes that have severely damaged the real-estate market and which Princeton economics professor Paul Krugman calls the "greatest financial disasters since the Great Depression."
We heard politicians like Tom DeLay claim that deregulating the utility industry would have electricity flowing into each home for a fraction of the cost because "competition" in the market place would save billions of dollars annually for Americans. Instead we got the failure and crimes of Enron, California's electrical crisis and its accompanying blackouts during the hottest days of the year. And we got gouging of utilities in other states that had to pay Enron's extortion rates because of its near monopoly status in many areas. Those overcharges still weren't enough to save the company from its own criminal excesses enabled by deregulation.
(Brief aside: As a holder of electric-company stock in Nevada, which had to sell its generating plants as part of doing business in a small part of deregulated California, I have paid mightily for that fiasco brought on by GOP Gov. Pete Wilson and utility executives. Those who caused the situation have paid little, if any. Only after several years of not paying a dividend is the company reinstituting a pittance amount. Also got burned as a stockholder in an Oregon company that was gobbled up by Enron, which paid with phony paper, and will never again pay a dividend. Thank you, deregulators)
Deregulation has brought us major malfeasance in numerous American corporations and Paul, as a foe of business regulation, would do nothing to address this problem that affected such firms as Worldcom, Tyco, Adelphia and many others. In graduate school, I was taught that every regulation exists to address an evil present in the system and when a regulation is removed the evil returns. Evils have returned in droves in areas right-wing "libertarians" deregulated. And regulations protect honest businesses from the dishonest or criminal.
Paul has publicly stated that he wants the federal government to be shrunk mightily and wouldn't mind if it disappeared altogether. He says the only function it should have, if it didn't disappear, would be defense and maintaining a stable currency. Those are the conditions that existed under the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789) and they were a monumental failure, leading our Founding Fathers to write the Constitution that created a strong central government capable of addressing national problems as they arose.
Now Paul supporters will say that Paul has never uttered the specific words "Articles of Confederation" so that is not his intent; but George Bush never said he wanted an unnecessary war and its accompanying war crimes, or wanted to trash the Constitution, deny legal representation to people called "enemy combatants" or myriad other sins he has committed. It doesn't matter what words are used or not used; what matters is a political record and Paul's record shows a disdain for active government that actually benefits its citizens, especially those having the least influence.
Paul wants to eliminate the income tax (a noble thought if he had something reasonable to take its place) and the Internal Revenue Service. He is curiously silent on how he would collect the taxes needed to pay for that national defense if the IRS were eliminated.
Paul's supporters claim he is against the federal government involving itself in the matter of abortion, that belongs to the states. Nonsense. The Constitution, with its "privilages and immunities" clause indicates that reproduction or abortion belongs to no government, they are strictly a personal matters.
*****************************************************
Thomas Bonsell is a former newspaper editor (in Oregon, New York and Colorado) United States Air Force cryptanalyst and National Security Agency intelligence agent. He became one of American journalism's leading constitutional experts through years of study at Georgetown University Graduate School of Government in Washington, D.C., and tries (without much success) to be patient with people who argue endlessly on subjects they have never studied. He is the author of "The Un-Americans: Trashing of the United States Constitution in the American Press", a critique of the mainstream media for ignorance of, or disdain for, our constitutional principles of self-government. He left newspaper work years ago, disgusted at the direction the Fourth Estate ~ under the mismanagement of ineffectual, out-of-touch, can't-do executives ~ was taking away from honest responsible journalism and the observation that there was no place in the mainstream media for a progressive, or liberal, constitutional "expert". Bonsell is an honors graduate of Woodbury College (Los Angeles, California) with a bachelor of business administration degree. He is profiled in Marquis Who's Who in America. (Self-portrait, above, was handled to make author/artist appear prettier than he actually is.)
Personal motto: Have brain; will use.
Could you please provide the exact list of those "portions that enabled liberals and progressives to make this nation a better place for all?"
You make some strong claims but provide no references to the Constitution itself.
Surely, "after years of studying the Constitution in graduate school of one of America's elite universities under some of the finest constitutional minds in academia," providing a brief list of such portions from the Constitution shouldn't be any trouble for you.
Thank you in advance.
by
tim123 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 9:18:48 AM
I did list some items liberals have done to make the nation better for many people. Such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, workers' comp, etc., all of which are authorized under Article I, Section 8, paragraph 1, of the United States Constitution's "general welfare clause."
Then I listed workplace safety, antipollution laws, environmental protection and minimum wages all of which are allowed under the power to regulate commerce.
It's all there for you to see.
By using these powers for those programs, liberals and progressive had reduced poverty in this nation from upwards of 50 percent (still 24% when Eisenhower left office) before the progressive era to 11.4% under Carter. Sure skyrocket during the conservative era hasn't it?
by
tabonsell (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 250 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 12:46:00 PM
authorizes all these programs which are basically raided anyhow by our government, in violation of the Social Security Act of 1935, which set up a TRUST? It was never supposed to have surplus money placed into the General Fund.
by
fuzzy wzhe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 4:26:03 PM
Responding to Tim123: I agree with you.... The author's answer to you was not specific OR concrete. His high-faluting regard for his elitist education has skewed his view of the SPIRIT of the Constitution....He's like a typical lawyer who can turn everything upside down by his (mis)use of the Letter of the Law. He certainly never studied the INTENT of the Founding Fathers (I can guarantee you it wasn't for us to become a Welfare State!). I'll bet he let all his super-duper professors do all his thinking for him in college and that's why the general public does not believe they can simply READ THE DOCUMENT themselves, and make up their own mind what it says.
by
Sara DiNicola (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 4:29:13 PM
He did not reference them because he cannot. I am so tired of agents of disinformation. Opinion pieces are fine, but do not pretend your telling the truth when you are bald-faced lying. Once you make the ridiculous notion that Paul would seek to federally eliminate abortion, it was clear that you are either lying or simply do not understand anything. He is so far to the other side it is laughable for you to say otherwise. Paul wants the fed out of the bedroom business and always has. Perhaps your biggest whopper was the notion that Paul "feeds the military industrial complex". Where exactly do you base that on? The fact that he has voted consistently against feeding it? The fact that he is the ONLY guy talking about it and ending their stranglehold on America? The fact that he is the only one speaking against the state of fascism we are in now?
Look, if you do not like the guy, don't vote for him but do not come on here and lie to people to try and convince them. I also heard nothing from you about an alternative. And please do not say Dennis Kucinich. I can generate more votes than he is going to get (although I do like that he is sincere in his beliefs, like Paul).
I will have an article up today to dispell the latest in a series of smear attempt on Dr. Paul. Be well.
by
Anthony Wade (141 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 454 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 9:33:05 AM
I did not say that Paul would work to eliminate abortion. I said he would turn the matter back to the states ~ where it would be eliminated in many areas ~ in violation of the Constitution's protection of our "privileges and immunities" from state governments. Since the Constitution gives government NO POWER to regulate the reproduction process, our love lives or even marriage, they are IMMUNITIES that the Constitution says no government can touch.
That's known as "limited government."
by
tabonsell (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 250 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 12:53:33 PM
First of all, turning power back to the states is a great idea for certain programs. Then, you can vote with your feet. If you don't like California's way, move to Texas, etc... It is a good start towards reducing entitlement programs that you believe enrich this country.
WHO PAYS FOR THESE PROGRAMS? Why is it liberals never bother to think about these things? Who will pay for Gex X's social security? Noone. Becuase it won't be there. Why? Because it's a ponzi scheme dependent upon the growth of the tax-paying middle class, which both political parties seem bent on destroying.
What's worse than having to worry about having a 'progressive' in office? Having two progressives to choose from. Ron Paul stands for things that many Americans know to be true, but don't have the time or inclination to think about. Education is dumbed down, people are actually ignorant of the constitution, and are too lazy to fullfill their civic duties, voting and having a basic understanding of the constitution.
So you run in and try to scare people into believing that Ron Paul is going to cancel social security and medicare. !!!!!NEWS FLASH!!!!! They're already past repair and will crater this country.
by
Justin Green (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 1:42:41 PM
You can't argue with these people, Tom. I went a round with them myself -- said a few good things about Paul and a few bad -- and was immediately and roundly chastised as ignorant and stupid for not agreeing with him about absolutely everything. Seemed a bit contrary to the Jeffersonian, libertarian spirit if you ask me, but there you are. They're True Believers. Their minds are placed in Park. That's all there is to it.
Unfortunately for them, the Republican Party is full of True Believers -- it seems to be a precondition for membership -- and most of them still truly believe in George Bush and his war. Paul at this point has raised enough cash to hang around for a while, but there's no way he's going to win. I wish he would, because he would force the Democratic nominee to make a more unequivocal commitment to withdrawal than they seem inclined to do, but it's not going to happen. For that reason, the decent thing for him to do would be to return all that money to his supporters, since their main concern seems to be they don't like to see "their money" being wasted, but I doubt that he will.
by
Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 5:25:17 PM
I agree that there is no hope of arguing with a "true believer" but I do it for people like you, who may read their arguments and my counter-arguments and come away with a tad more knowledge. On that basis, arguing with them isn't entirely futile if someone, somewhere learns something.
by
tabonsell (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 250 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 6:16:49 PM
They believe in Paul and Libertarianism and the Market and Corporations like the most religious person believes in their God. It requires ecclesiastical levels of worship to believe in the market like they do and ignore all the history of companies and markets left to themselves that end up destroying themselves. I could go on but I have said it to them so many times I dont feel the need to completely go over it again. Suffice to say, they have drunk the cool aid and are aching for more.
by
Steven Leser (194 articles, 39 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1302 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 7:01:13 PM
They believe in Paul and Libertarianism and the Market and Corporations like the most religious person believes in their God.
Not exactly.
I believe my Federal government is hopelessly corrupt and has been for quite some time, explaining our 9 trillion dollar national debt, and the fact that the Social Security Trust fund has been raided. Enron had some funny books, but it's nothing compared to our Federal Government that has sent 10s of billions of dollars off to Haliburton, only to have 9 billion unaccounted for, and yet the government continues to use their services.
When a corporation in a completely free market starts pulling this crap, they go bankrupt because lenders refuse to continue to lend them money and consumers stop buying their products.
When a government pulls this crap, they just put a gun to my head and demand that I pony up more tax money. My generation is the most taxed generation that ever existed in this country, ever and I enjoy basically the same government services that my great grandparents had, when they had a tax rate of below 10%.
That's my "religion".
by
fuzzy wzhe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 9:21:07 PM
God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
by
John Butcher (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 9:33:32 AM
Well, that statement was issued more than a week before the US Supreme Court's day of infamy, so it couldn't be referring to that. In fact, he is criticizing the Florida Supreme Court decision that all the votes should be counted, which the pro-Bush US Supreme Court reversed with an decision all of them were too embarrassed to sign. There's your Constitution-believing, "We the people" candidate for you.
Along the way, Paul employs all the code words ("judicial activism," etc.) the GOP has used for years to whip up anti-third branch hysteria -- so much for the separation of powers -- and the only actual decision he mentions, and singles out for denunciation, is Roe v. Wade. I am soooo reassured.
by
Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 5:06:27 PM
"In fact, he is criticizing the Florida Supreme Court decision that all the votes should be counted, which the pro-Bush US Supreme Court reversed with an decision all of them were too embarrassed to sign. "
The presidential election controversy not surprisingly reached the Florida Supreme Court, which rendered a verdict stunningly at odds with Florida law. Of course both camps in the dispute are guilty of exhibiting a "win at all costs mentality", using teams of lawyers to piously argue against the "injustices"they have suffered. Both are interested only in the final outcome, despite their shameless references to the Constitution and the "rule of law." Even in this atmosphere, however, most Americans still expected the Court to issue an impartial decision based on a rational interpretation of Florida law. It appears, however, that the Court simply ignored the plain language of state voting laws (and the Constitution) and imposed its political will on the people of Florida and the nation as a whole. The decision perhaps is not surprising, however, in light of the trend toward activist courts in our country.
by
fuzzy wzhe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 5:26:08 PM
Gore pushed the recount all the way to the FSC. His problem was that he wanted, at the time, a selective recount. If he had not pushed it to the FSC the USSC would have never been involved. The FSC overstepped its bounds with its decision and the USSC then had to step in to correct that. I don't think they had a choice. There were 8 Dems and 1 Repubs on the FL court so the FSC was going to rule in Gore's favor to be sure. Gore got the decision from the court he wanted and was rolling the dice that that would be the end of it. He wanted Democratic counties to do re-recounts using Democratic judges. The last thing he wanted was a statewide recount. Gore was out-lawyered in 2000 and has no one to blame but himself. He tried to micro-manage the whole process himself from Washington which was typical of an arrogant guy like Gore whereas Bush intelligently turned the fight over to adults. Gore was planning on pushing for re-re-re-recounts until he got the result he wanted.
Before you bather insanely on about a stolen election keep in mind that Gore lost his 'home' state, Clinton's 'home' state, and NH. Winning any one of those would have made him president even if he lost FL. He ran one of the worst presidential campaigns in history and deserved to lose. He and his campaign were arrogant and corrupt. They thought Bush was a pushover and in the end Bush and his campaign outsmarted Gore. Bush had no business winning but did and Gore didn't.
by
Mad Jayhawk (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 226 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 12:03:38 AM
It really doesn't matter let me explain that I am tired of supporting a Medicade/Disabled family on my paycheck. The amount of taxes they take out off of my family would support between 1 and 2 families on the system. I live in WV there are a lot of people here on the "system" they spend there time drinking and having more children, the average family in my town has at least 3 children the ones that I know on Social Security and Disability all have 5. When did it become the norm for me to be forced to give my money to people who can obviously work. If they can raise 5 children i'm sorry but they can get off there ass and work. There mothers btw recieve our money because they suffer from "depression" and I"m sorry if there that depressed what the hell are they doing raising 5 kids? Ron Paul is totally right The system doesn't work. Alot of these people can work, Most of these people can work, there are doctors in the US that if you pay them $5,000 they will guarntee that you can get on the system. And you pay them out of your checks. I'm sorry but I'm not working so that these people can sit at home get lazy off my paycheck. My mother has been on the system for years and she is disabled but in the back of my mind i think if she had to work she could. She swares she can't but then again the state really hasn't given her a reason to try. Its so easy to get on the system get dependent on it but why don't we give these people a reason to get off, and if they really need to be on the system how about they be required to Work for there money, meaning pick up litter on the side of the road, be forced to count ballots, stuff mail whatever, it takes so that there at least earning the money that the goverment is STEALING from me to give to them.
Sorry if I want to support a family, I'd rather make sure it was going to someone who truly needed it, And it be required that non of them are in jail that all there kids are in school making good grades.
So although your arguement is BS I'll tell you that's my feelings on the system which btw with the current econmy that system will be broke in 9 years which actually is probably more like 3. But hey lets keep trusting the goverment....
by
Kitt Rezner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 9:47:08 AM
The moment he became President, Ron Paul would blast away at the chains that restrain freedom, peace and prosperity in this country and around the world.
President Paul would endeavor to scale back Government more than any other candidate and he has an ironclad record of doing exactly what he says. In 20 years in Congress he has amassed one of the most conservative and Constitutionally compliant voting records in American history. He has never voted to raise taxes. Never voted for an unbalanced budget. Never voted to trade liberty for security. Never voted for anything...ever; unless it was authorized by our Constitution. The lobbyist call him Dr. No because special interest groups can never get anything (our money) out of him. A man of principle and integrity. He's as incorruptible a politician as there ever was.
A Ron Paul Presidency would usher in a return to the Constitutional principles of limited government, just taxation, fiscal responsibility, sound money, strong national defense and individual rights.
Americans are hungry, thirsty; starving for change. We are tired of what we have been getting. Year after year, administration after administration, Republican or Democrat; nothing seems to be able to stop the unrelenting growth of government and it's corresponding sacrifice of freedom and prosperity. Congress has an approval rating in the teens. Ron Paul is a true Maverick. The establishment can't control him but We The People know exactly where he stands because of his adherence to the Constitution.
Liberty is not the natural order of things. It is extreme. It has existed in a relatively small place for a relatively short period of time. Ron Paul is extreme. He wants elected officials to honor their oath of office. He wants this country and posterity to enjoy the blessings of liberty by going back to the future. Back to our Constitution.
by
Kevin Moore (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 9:55:11 AM
Once again, we have an elitist telling us how stupid we are. This is exactly why the people of the United States need to vote for Ron Paul. It is the elite that "know more" than the people that will lead to the demise of democracy. The Constitution was not written for the elitists to reinterpret. It was written to protect liberty. Think for yourself. Question authority. Vote for Ron Paul.
by
Justin Sayne (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 10:07:00 AM
