BREAKING: The Ozark House Endorses Ron Paul for President

Surely you already knew this.

If you didn’t, I anticipate a myriad of reactions. Enumerated, they are:

1) Pleasantly surprised – You didn’t know of our liberty-leanings, but did know of Ron Paul’s, and you’re enthused to find even more supporters whose existence the media refuses to acknowledge.

2) Pleasantly unsurprised – You didn’t know we loved Congressman Paul, but you could have guessed it, based on our anti-establishment tendencies.

3) Disgusted and surprised – You thought we were better than this. Don’t we know Ron Paul’s foreign policy? (Yes, we do.) Also, how could we support someone so old?

4) Disgusted and unsurprised – You always suspected we were a house full of kooks, and now we have confirmed your fears. You’ll never read this blog again.

5) Confused and curious – You don’t know who Ron Paul is. You also didn’t know that different people have to compete for the right to run for president as a certain party’s nominee. It’s possible that you forgot we have a president.

6) Scoffing – You are quite certain that you know that Ron Paul will never, in a thousand years (and he’s halfway there, you think), get elected. Bill O’Reilly is your pastor, Rush Limbaugh is your prophet, and Fox News is your window to the world. So equipped, you think you know we’re wrong, and you chuckle in the same way you imagine God chuckles every time a scientist exclaims “Eureka!”

7) Apathetic – You don’t care about elections, politics, or government in general. This is either because: a) You think all politicians are purely evil, and you have reacted to it by refusing to vote or care (thereby ensuring that the evil politicians continue their evil reign – but at least you’ve kept your hands clean!), b) You don’t understand what the government has to do with your life, but you do understand what Lady Gaga has to do with your life. You are one of those who John Stossel says might be “too stupid to vote.” There’s hope for you, but it might begin by switching the channel from MTV/VH1 to…well, ANY news channel. Begin to learn and think critically (and disagree with pundits). Your eyes will slowly open. OR c) You voted one time, and didn’t get anything from it – not even a free lollipop. The man/woman you voted for didn’t get elected, and you swore off elections forever.

If you’re still reading, thanks. Allow me to ask two things from you:

First – Consider Ron Paul. If you don’t like him, my guess is you prefer one of the following: Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Perry. I understand why you might like those men; allow me to suggest, however, that your preference for anyone but Ron Paul is birthed out of ignorance. I’m not calling you stupid, I think you’re probably very bright. I’m merely testifying to the actions of the media: they have done their best to ignore, demean, and disregard Congressman Paul. So, you have not been informed of his policies and of the sensibility behind them. Below, find a few videos that might help you become a more informed voter (and that might help you see that Ron Paul is the only candidate who truly upholds liberty and justice for all, and is the one who has been doing it for over 30 years).

***IT’S THE ECONOMY***

If you need to know who’s the most qualified to deal with our devastated economy, watch this:

***LIBERTY OR DEATH***

Ready for the government to stop telling the people what to do and how to do it? Ron Paul wants to dramatically shrink the size and scope of the federal government, and reserve for the states and local municipalities most of the powers that currently reside in Washington. Yes, that means legalizing narcotics on the federal level; yes, it means getting government out of the marriage business altogether. Just because we don’t approve of someone’s personal choice doesn’t mean we should outlaw it at the federal level – that’s tyranny! Below is the first of several parts to an interview John Stossel did with Ron Paul. You can find the subsequent parts on the right side of the YouTube page.

Additionally, if you’re worried about his stance on legalizing drugs:

***A SERIOUS PLAN***

Ron Paul’s proposed budget for his first year in office cuts $1 TRILLION in government spending. He ends five wasteful, unnecessary departments of government. He zeroes out foreign aid (that’s where we just give money to other nations, when we’re broke). He reforms Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, without hanging out to dry those people who are currently dependent on the system. You can see his plan here: RON PAUL “PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA”

Oh yeah, and if you like Limbaugh? He may not support Ron Paul for president, but he overtly endorsed Ron Paul’s budget plan. Listen here.

***END THE WELFARE STATE AND THE WARFARE STATE***

We don’t need to be the world police. George W. Bush said it when he ran for president; then he reneged once he was elected. We’ve spent trillions on our two (or is it three? or four?) overseas wars in the last decade, and it’s time to end the wars, bring the troops home, and defend our borders.

And if you’re seriously worried that Iran will nuke us…seriously? We have anti-ballistic missile defense systems (no one else does). We are half a world away from Iran (and North Korea). And we would know about a potential attack long before it happened. Additionally, those countries know that if they attack us, we’ll obliterate them. Need more convincing?

Second – Please register as a Republican and vote in the primaries in your state! And when you vote: Vote for sound money! Vote for a strong national defense and an end to our global warmongering! Vote for smaller government! Vote for liberty! Vote for Ron Paul!

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Nathan and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to BREAKING: The Ozark House Endorses Ron Paul for President

  1. Captain says:

    Alright! Since you gone overtly public, I must impart some wisdom your way. Ron Paul can’t…repeat, ‘can’t’ cut gov spending, can’t zero out foreign aid, can only eliminate some gov dpts, can’t reform entitlement programs unless he gets the democrats on board. From all I have heard, (not just from Fox), he has sound and sensible ideas, but he has no more power than what congress allows and the media will tolerate. He is running for president not dictator. I have yet to hear how any candidate has a strategy to end the polarized political gridlock. This super duper debt committee demonstrated to me that fundamental paradigm shifts have to occur before we will embrace practical ideas. We are not there yet. I will admit that Ron Paul is practical. His best chance to be elected is not a great campaign, but a crisis that only his ideas can address. It might happen before the Republican candidate is declared.

    There! From a father-in-law who loves you, and typically refrains from voicing his opinion. Recognize this truth, we are all (at some level) a product of the various types of media we are exposed to. Symptomatic of the current culture. It is no longer reporting but commentary. Every news story has an angle. It makes us all ignorant to some degree.

    Ron Paul hasn’t won my vote yet, but no one has. I am enjoying the media constructing a Republican candidates ‘king of the hill’ game. Appears to be Newt’s time at the top. I am still waiting for Santorum to move up.

    • I’m pretty sure I agree with pretty much everything you said – particularly the part about us all being a product of the various media to which we are exposed. The reality is, of course, that “objective journalism” is not even a realistic expectation. Everything from the selection of stories to the selection of interviewees to the time and date at which a story is run – and so on – are all subtleties that combine to create the massive ball of opinions that we call journalism. This really just mirrors our own everyday lives, though.
      And you are correct – much of the budgetary changes he has brought to the table are things that he can’t do alone (I know he can immediately bring the troops home, thus ending expensive wars, and I suspect there are clever ways in which he can de-fund – or at least cut the legs out from under – various government departments. I don’t know for sure, but if a department – like Homeland Security – was created by the president [was it a Bush executive order?], can’t it be ended by an executive order?). My hope is that if he becomes the candidate for presidency, and then president, it will reflect a sentiment that is broad enough around the nation that the legislative branch will bow to the pressure of the president and their constituencies. And you’re right in pointing out that he has to bring democrats and republicans together. I think, though, from my limited knowledge, that he may be the most capable candidate to do that. I’ve never heard of a candidate in recent years who was simultaneously embraced by devout liberals AND devout conservatives. I’ve talked to plenty of democrats who like many of his ideas. But yes, it will still undoubtedly be a tough road.
      Finally, I think you might be right about a looming crisis that reveals his position as the only one that will bring our country and economy back from the brink of disaster. I hear lots of people voicing similar sentiments…
      We’ll see what happens!

  2. Matt says:

    What if, instead of considering Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Perry, I’m considering voting for the current Commander in Chief? What if I think that Ron Paul is capable of fixing the debt crisis and I like his ideas, but I think that Obama has done a pretty good job with the hand he has been dealt and like Obama MUCH more than Perry, Gingrich, Romney, or Cain? What if I think that Huntsman is the best republican candidate (http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/22/opinion/huntsman-foreign-policy/index.html)? What if Ron Paul’s plans to take the government out of personal decisions set up a precedent that will NEVER allow Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

    If you can answer these questions, then there’s a good chance my vote will go to Ron Paul (let’s be honest, I live in Texas, my vote doesn’t count anyways…), but it not, I’ll probably just be one of those guys he mentions that splits the vote of the status quo.

    • Well, I’ll answer your questions in order, to the best of my ability…
      1) I would rather have Obama than Cain, Gingrich, or Perry, but my reasoning may be different than yours. I would want it to happen (provided Ron Paul dropped out of the race) in order to wake up the republican party – causing a return to genuine liberty-directed conservatism. I still wouldn’t vote for Obama, though – I’d write in Ron Paul (yeah, talk about “votes that don’t count”).
      2) Well, you have to decide whether you like Obama better than Paul. And you seem to speak the answer yourself when you say “Ron Paul is capable of fixing the debt crisis.” That also rebuts your praise for Obama. Obama is the president, and has been for three years, and we still have a terrible mess, with little hope of recovery in the near future. That means bad policies. For example…Obama re-appointed Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Obama has used myriad executive orders to do what the Constitution only empowers Congress to do (he has illegally expanded the scope and power of the executive branch, to all of our detriment, Republican or Democrat). He’s not the first to do it, but he still did it. Speaking of the past, Obama truly was handed a mess. However, to claim that he’s done a “pretty good job” with it is to ignore the facts. He has, time after time, upheld and supported legislation and policies that place heavier burdens on the market. He has bailed out lots of cronies. He has a dirty relationship with the unions – and barely tries to hide it (they wield power, they give him money, he wields power, he gives them more power, and so on…). He killed Bin Laden. That’s an accomplished objective. But in the meantime, he continued trillions in war-spending, perpetuated the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, started a new level of involvement in Libya, and on and on. He stubbornly persists with Keynesian economic policies, even though they have done nothing but deepen our nation’s troubles. Even the Occupy Wall Street people know he isn’t a friend of “the 99%” (http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/22/8959904-ows-protester-hands-note-to-obama)
      3) Problematic comments by Huntsman, just from that article:
      –“Others advocate retrenchment and isolationism through draconian across-the-board cuts, which brings greater instability and risks.”
      ——-I can only assume he’s speaking of Congressman Paul here. While I understand the need to criticize one’s opponents in the interest of self-aggrandizement, he (typically) mis-states Ron Paul’s position. It’s not isolationist – that’s where a nation refuses to associate with other nations. And the cuts are only “draconian” in the sense that he cuts war spending, because he would bring the troops home immediately. He still maintains a strong national defense (ABM systems and the rest), while using the troops that are now home to protect our borders and build a solid defense infrastructure. “Draconian” is a word that people use to criticize things without giving a logical argument against them. He might as well have said “stupid.”
      –“America alone cannot police the world. We should increase burden-sharing for the protection of the global commons among countries that share our values and security objectives.”
      ——-America should not police the world, period! Who but the nuclear bomb decided that we are the world police?
      4) Surely you don’t think Ron Paul could hurt Roe v. Wade more than Obama has (and will continue to)? Additionally, one must never fear to do what’s right, simply because somebody might abuse the new freedoms given to them. Returning liberty to the people is good; states can still pass legislation/amendments that would outlaw abortions. Ron Paul has discussed this at length – the solution, he says, is a virtuous society (which, of course, can’t be legislated). Because, even if abortions are outlawed (via Roe v. Wade overturned), abortive birth control pills would be almost impossible to regulate (just like illegal narcotics) – at least at the federal level. So the states and local municipalities are more equipped to deal with these issues. Eventually, it’d be nice if the government quit bothering about our reproductive organs altogether (i.e. – handing out free contraceptives, supporting Planned Parenthood, and encouraging “safe sex” to high school students), and I think these problems would automatically lessen. When the government subsidizes sex…well…it’s just like when they subsidize corn – you find it in everything!
      —–
      Maybe that’s a start…

Your thoughts here. As long as they're not vulgar. Or spam.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s