Quote of the Day

Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts

10.04.2008

I'm a conservative. Am I going to lose my job now?

Recently it was pointed out to me that I am putting my position as adjunct faculty at the local community college at risk by openly being a part of the local Republican party. It may be prudent then, for me to clarify WHY I am part of the Republican party.

I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I would like to see a small federal government that does not meddle in social causes, domestic or abroad. Be it education policies at home or regime changes abroad, I don't think it is our federal government's place to get involved. Education policy should be determined by local communities with a little bit of state coordination. Policies and politics of other countries should be determined by the citizens of those countries.

This is not to say that we should ignore heartaches abroad, but that our Federal government should not be the primary conduit of assistance. We allow the appearance of Federal Aid to stand in for personal involvement, even though we know full well that much of that aid seeps away in the form of bureaucrats' salaries.

Of the two parties, the Republican party historically advocated for small government, lower taxes, and individual freedoms more than the Democrat party did. Yes, the Republican party has drifted away (Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, etc., this atrocious bail-out) from its core and that is why I am involved. The Ron Paul movement allowed me to see that there are quite a few people who align themselves as I do -- more Republican than Democrat -- but pretty dissatisfied with the current face of the Republican party. If we all get involved, perhaps we can yank nudge the party back to the right.

I'm putting this out here so that if any of my community college colleagues come to check out the rumors that I am (gasp) a Republican, they can learn that yes, I am, because I don't like what the current administration has been up to.

In what ways do I disagree with the Republican norm?

1. I don't think government has any business organizing any sorts of marriage. I think we should do what Germany does. Individuals register their couple-ship with the state in a civil ceremony which takes care of fiscal concerns. Religious people hold a religious ceremony in a religion of their choosing. The state does not take a position on what is moral, and the religions are free to acknowledge - or not - the marriages of other flavors of religion.

2. Foreign policy, obviously. Why on earth are we out defending other countries' borders and repairing their roads and bridges when our own borders, roads, and bridges are falling apart? Military might is for defense, not meddling in other people's business.

3. No Child Left Behind. Yikes! Bureaucrats determining curriculum is always a bad idea. Schools should be accountable to parents, not to federal cubicle-dwellers.

So, there you have it. I'm that kind of conservative. A mind-you-own-business be-responsible-for-yourself shrink-federal-government states'-rights reduce-taxes kind of conservative. And I'm a really good English teacher.

I want to believe that my political ideas will have no bearing on contract renewals. Am I just being naïve?

~Suzanne
:: a year ago today: rant: television
Technorati ,

9.29.2008

bailout vote fails

Yipee! I guess there is hope for America after all.

~Suzanne

Technorati , , , ,

9.25.2008

federal bailouts

Dear Friends:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

In liberty,



Learn more.

Technorati , , , ,

9.10.2008

We Agree

Over at The Campaign for Liberty, it is posted that the other parties -- not the Dems, not the Reps -- but Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, and Ralph Nader(Independent) agree with Ron Paul (Republican) on these four principles that make so much sense to me that I am puzzled why the two main parties don't get it.

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none. Thomas Jefferson ~ March 4, 1801

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.
This seems like a no-brainer to me. Individually and corporately, we have got to start living within our means.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.


You do realize, don't you, that the Federal Reserve is not a government bank, but a private business with the power to print money at will?


~Suzanne

Technorati , ,

6.12.2008

Ron Paul

My hero ends one campaign . . . . . . and starts a new one.



~Suzanne





3.20.2008

18 months in

A year and a half ago today our plane landed in Chicago and our kids became US citizens. Hours later another plane landed in Seattle and we were picked up and driven home. A year and a half ago today -- a mere 18 months -- our children walked into our home for the first time. We were still speaking Russglish back then, still using sign language, still essentially strangers to one another. Twas merely a year and a half ago.



How did we celebrate? My Gift worked overtime and I took the children first to class with me (last night WHoo HOOO) and then to a Ron Paul party to celebrate our successful convention. I did mention that 80% of the delegates from our county are Ron Paul's people, didn't I? We had much to celebrate.


~Suzanne

3.13.2008

Sowing Liberty by Dr. Ron Paul in Homeschooling Today

In the March/April 2008 issue of Homeschooling Today which is built around a gardening theme,
my hero -- Dr. Ron Paul -- has contributed Sowing Liberty, an excellent 4-page article on homeschooling, emphasizing the need for home-schooling families to stay committed to teaching principles of liberty.

He opens with a quick reminder that we are losing privacy rights hand-over-fist, tossing away liberty in the pursuit of security, while gaining neither. Even so, Dr. Paul has some cause for hope, claiming that
[f]ortunately, there is always a remnant who longs for truly limited government, maintaining a belief in the rule of law combined with a deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a Constitution are the most advantageous form of government. They recognize this idea as the only practical way for prosperity to be spread to the maximum number of people, while promoting peace and security. Their thoughts are dominated by a different and more powerful word: freedom (p6).

Dr. Paul then cautions us to be quite clear and quite specific about what we mean by freedom. "If we hope to remain free," he exhorts, "we must cut through the fog of rhetoric and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians often use to deceive us." Concrete meanings, mutually agreed upon, are immensely powerful, and, in an era of meaningless fluff, immensely attractive. Dr. Paul continues, "We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy [. . .]" Let's hear that part again. "We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule"(p.6).

Hmmmm. Republic? Democracy? If I recall this properly, a republic is ruled by law (the Constitution in our case) and the political leaders are elected by the people whom they represent: a representative government bound to uphold the Constitution. A Democracy is majority-rule. The wishes of the majority should prevail. In a democracy, there is no higher law than the will of the people, as communicated by the politicians they elect and/or as communicated by majority vote.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all..

So, for example, if the will of the people is to toss out all the civil liberties guaranteed unto them in the Constitution, a democracy would let them toss as many as they wish and a republic would be bound to uphold the Constitution. Oh but I digress. Shall we return to Dr. Paul's article?

After reminding us of the rather startling difference between a Republic and a Democracy, Dr. Paul in his typical blunt fashion -- which I so appreciate -- explains that, "Those who hold political power would lose their status in a society with truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied various political posts, since their ability to tax, spend, and regulate would be severely curtailed. This is why champions of political power promote an activist government that involves itself in every area of our lives, from cradle to grave. They gain popular support by promising voters that the government will take care of everyone, while the media shower them with praise for their bold vision" (p.8). No wonder the media and the mainstream politicians have been muffling his candidacy.

Self-reliance and self-defense are American virtues; trembling reliance on the illusion of government-provided security is not. ~ Dr. Ron Paul

I've heard it said that Democrats stand for rights and Republicans stand for responsibilities, but I think the distinction that Dr. Paul's article has reminded me of matters a great deal more. Democrats work towards the (perceived) good of the people whilst answering to no law higher than majority rule. Republicans work (or should be working) towards the upholding of the Constitution which would mean limiting government powers, not expanding them. Dr. Paul explains that "[a]s defined by the Constitution, the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system to prosecute acts of force and fraud, and that’s all. In other words, the State’s role in our society is as referee, rather than an active participant" (p.7).

You can read the whole article, Sowing Liberty at the Homeschooling Today website.


~Suzanne

Technorati , , , ,

2.11.2008

Whatcom County Republican Caucus Results

Final numbers:


Whatcom County Caucus Results; February 9, 2008 Precinct Caucuses


119 Precincts, 119 Precincts Reporting

Huckabee 87 Delegates 32.7%

Paul 64 Delegates 24.1%

McCain 53 Delegates 19.9%

Romney 23 Delegates 8.6%

Uncommitted 39 Delegates 14.7%

TOTAL DELEGATES 266 100.0%


~Suzanne

caucus report

Well that was interesting. Our pooled caucus had quite a few first-time caucusers there and many of us had read up on the prescribed procedures and protocols, to the dismay of the party old-timers who were often gently -- and sometimes not so gently -- reminded of the supposed-tos in contrast to the always-have-dones.

The piece that most mattered for the Ron Paul campaign was that when we broke into precincts, the PCO tallied up the Presidential Preferences from the sign-in sheet and declared that the numbers showed that, as we had 5 delegates to choose, we should choose 1 for Romney, 2 for Huckabee, and 2 for Ron Paul.

I then reminded him to call roll, which we did, and discovered that many Romney and Huckabee people had left. In a group of 17 we had then 9 Ron Pauls, 7 Huckabees, and 1 Romney, so an allocation of 3 RP and 2 Hucks would have been more fitting. Good thing we remembered to call roll! As it turns out, only one person was willing to do the county caucus for Huckabee, so we ended up with 4 RP & 1 Huck and all 5 alternates for RP. Much better than what the PCO had suggested at the beginning!

Poor guy, speaking of the PCO. Afterward he shared that in all the years of PCOing, they had never had enough turnout for it to matter. Whoever wanted to be a delegate got to be one, so he had never had cause to learn and practice the official procedures. Of course the Ron Paul supporters had all studied up and came prepared. How embarrassing for him!

~Suzanne


2.08.2008

Washington State Caucus Day

Tomorrow we are going a'caucusing. Here, for your reading pleasure, are my key talking points on why I support Dr. Ron Paul.
There are three main reasons I am pulling for Ron Paul.

1. State's Rights: Ron Paul rightly points out that there is no mandate in the Constitution for the Federal gov to determine social issues. Gay rights, abortion, etc., those are all state issues. This speaks to me in that I have no chance of getting to Wash DC to air my views, though I can easily get to Olympia. Ron Paul and I share the view that the best government (i.e. the most accountable government) is the closest government.

2. Free (not Managed) Trade: true free trade does not involve large bureaucracies full of unelected people that make decisions that impact us. I have long been an adherent to Austrian School economic principles and Ron Paul's trade views are a great fit.

3. Department of Education: It used to be that schools were accountable to parents via local school boards. Now schools are accountable to bureaucrats in DC. I know a man that earns 200,000 a year working for the Dept of Education. He does not have kids. He has never taught in the classroom. He makes a ton of money setting policy for teachers who earn around 40,000 a year. This is not right. The Dept of Education needs to be abolished and Ron Paul is the man to do it, along with getting rid of a handful of other administrator-rich and quite useless Departments. If there is any standardizing of education that needs to happen -- which is questionable -- it needs to happen on a state level, or a county level, or best of all, a community level.

4. Dr. Paul would have us honor the Founding Father's mandate to avoid all foreign entanglements.

I know, I said three, and there are four and I could go on and on. In a nutshell, Ron Paul is for adhering to the Constitution and for protecting the civil liberties of the citizenry; he is a statesman who believes in the ideals of a servant government, one that serves the population rather than bullies the population with invasions of privacy (Patriot Act), and Mandatory Charitable Giving. Okay, here is #5.

5. Charitable Giving: When the government takes my money and gives to the poor they are forcing me to be charitable in directions and amounts that I may not wish. We all agree, I think, that people should give to others, but where in the Constitution is there a mandate for the Government to enforce and administrate this? It is not Constitutional!

And if that isn't enough, he's a real man: faithful to his convictions, loyal to his wife, consistent in his views; he acts with purpose and integrity and even his opponents have admitted to respecting him. I would like -- once in my life -- to have someone I can admire in the White House.

Here is a link to his issues page:

Thanks for reading,

~Suzanne


1.10.2008

Ron Paul Quotes

I have joined your revolution and I'm proud to be part of what you want to do. ~ Rep. Ron Paul

I finally got my Rep. Ron Paul rotating quotes banner up. I got most of the quotes from FDRS, Paul 4 Prez, and Ron Paul Fan. If you would like the coding, already loaded with quotes, here it is. Naturally, I'd sure appreciate some linky love.



Alas, when I put it in the textbox, it adds html markers for line breaks where we don't want them. Take out all the line break markers <br/> and replace them with the Enter key. Basically start everything on a new line that used to have a line break marker
<br/>. EXCEPT, don't take out the line break markers inside quote 39. You need those ones.

Surely there is a better way to deal with this. Any ideas?
~Suzanne



cross-posted to I'm a Paulunteer!

1.09.2008

Ron Paul on Jay Leno

Mmmmmmmmwwwwwahhhhhhh! Right now, I love love love Jay Leno.





~Suzanne


1.08.2008

New Hampshire Primary Results

Visit Politico's main page for a quick summary of 2008 New Hampshire Primary results and visit this page for 2008 New Hampshire Primary County by County results, updated as results arrive.

~Suzanne