Real Change, Dr. Paul Style!

Remember how in my last post I promised to tell everyone what real change would be? Well, I'm going to do that today. This is going to give you an introduction to how Dr. Ron Paul would have done things if he were in charge today.

First of all, people tend to think that foreign policy and economics are two different entities that have very little, if anything, to do with each other. This couldn't be further from the truth. We're currently stationed in over 130 countries around the world, and most of these bases were supposed to be temporary. This is costing us a fortune, and we've had to borrow over a trillion dollars from China just to fund this "Empire" of ours and keep up the War on Terror, which it would seem Obama is still continuing, as outlined in my last post. Currency crumbles and empires fall when they spend too much money overseas. Look at the Soviet Union for example of this.

We also have this problem of inciting hatred in other nations because of our arrogance and the thinking that the world will fall apart if we're not sticking our noses into the business of others. One of the common arguments I recieve from people is that other nations only hate us when we threaten them with bombs if they don't comply to our standards. This isn't true. Most countries actually dislike us because our bases are set up, we're using their resources, sometimes comitting crimes, and generally being a pain. Really now, if Russia or China set up a base on our land to protect their overseas interest, we'd pull out our guns, demand that they leave, etc. Why do something to others if we'd protest it ourselves? It's the Golden Rule!

So, while Obama might not have soldiers parading down towns and holding people at gun point (although Pakistan might say otherwise), we're still making the world angry at us for simply being there. It's intimidating and it'll come bite us in the butt one day...again. We were called the Evil Empire long before Bush came to town, and we'll be called that until we get our military-industrial complex in order.

Another argument I typically come across is, "The world is much more complex today that it was 100 years ago." The world isn't more complex, actually. The technology is stronger, the wars more devastating, but people's thinking is still very much the same. The Middle-East has been in chaos since the beginning of time, and I highly doubt they won't be getting along no matter how many times we urge them to. Politics are politics, no matter what toys you give them to play with.

What needs to happen, then? We need to pack up and come home. Our borders aren't safe anyway. One study (I can't find it right now) suggested that we would be unable to survive a second attack because our military is stretched so thin. Our national defense is weakened when we overdue our military aggressiveness, so we should close down all those bases and have our soldiers actually protecting our borders. This would also solve some illegal immigration problems we've been having!

Second, we need to fix things at home. The best way to promote our way of life is not to force it on others or pressure them in any way, but to lead by example. Democracy doesn't look so pleasing when it means intimidating others and letting our own people pay for it. It's better to make sure our needs are met first, and that isn't happening.

First of all, we need to get the government out of our lives. The role of the Federal Government is to protect our borders and secure our freedom. This will also improve our lives drastically. I won't go into everything, but here's some things that should definately happen.

Firstly, the Department of Education has to go. Everyone seems to think that this will lead to the dismantling of schools, but it's not. What the Dept. of Education does is standardize schools and regulate them. Public schools should be in the hands of their community and their State, not in the hands of beaurocrats for obvious reasons.

A good example of this would be "No Child Left Behind," which, while it sounds good when you hear it, is not practical. In fact, it actually hinders student progress instead of helping it by standardizing tests, placing limitations on schools, and not allowing students to progress at levels comfortable to them. Not everybody is on the same page, and expecting everyone to be there will be a real challenge for some and hindrance for others.

This is really all that the Department of Education does. It regulates, mandates, and takes control away from the States, the parents, and the educators. I maintain very strongly that children belong to their parents, not to the government.

If you sit with a group of children today, you'll notice almost immediately that their levels for reading and writing are atrocious. They have difficulty understanding abstract concepts and are generally unable to apply what they learn in their everyday lives. Not all schools suffer from this, but many of them do, and it's because of these mandates. Teachers are spending their time trying to make sure students pass their standardized tests, and they prowl about searching for the unproven and scientifically void "mental illness" in children. It's not education at all, and it's disruptive to children's learning environment.

We also need to get the government out of health care. Most people will now say, "No one will be insured!" and, "Health care is already unaffordable because of lack of government!" Both of these are completley and utterly false. Does our current health care system suck? Yes! (Sorry for the wording.) This is due to government intervention. Let me tell you a story.

Once upon a time, the elderly and poor could go to a doctor and get top-quality care, but for either cut costs or for free. Why? Because hospitals were run by churches, charities, etc. not by government. In his book, Ron Paul said, "In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector."

Drug companies also have a monopoly on our health care system, and they are some of the most corrupt businesses in America. A lot of them have government ties, and they have placed a stranglehold on doctors. We face a multitude of problems, and drug companies want to make sure you don't know about alternative treatment programs or natural medicine. This is due to a bunch of HMO laws that they influenced in order to further restrict doctors and to keep profits for themselves. Medicine is now a business and money-making machine for government officials and lobbyists, not a life-saving practice.

If we got government out of health care, the competition would force prices down, not just for hospital bills themselves, but for insurance agencies as well, and we would be spared a bit from the drug company influences.

The last thing I'm going to talk about in this article today is the IRS and Federal Reserve. Yep, you know it was coming, didn't you? We need to give them boot, along with the income tax. If we diminish government spending overseas by bringing everyone home, get the government to stop looking over our shoulders and telling us what doctors to see, what pill to ingest, and what teachers can and cannot do (along with the dismantling of other government programs I've not yet talked about), we'll be able to get rid of this tax and this manipulative Federal Reserve system.

This way, the government will be out of the market and economy, we'll be able to keep our money and spend it, thus improving the economy as a whole, and if we go back to the Gold Standard we'll also have sound money.

"Then Enron will come back! We need government oversight!" I've heard that one too many times. If you really want to know about Enron, read this article.

In truth, however, the problem was not the lack of government involvement with Enron, but rather the close relationship between Enron and government. Enron in fact was deeply involved with the federal government throughout the 1990s, both through its lobbying efforts and as a recipient of large amounts of corporate welfare.
Enron provides a perfect example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. The company was (and is) one of the biggest beneficiaries of Export-Import Bank subsidies. The Ex-Im bank, a program that Congress continues to fund with your tax dollars, essentially makes risky loans to foreign governments and businesses for projects involving American companies. The Bank, which purports to help developing nations, really acts as a naked subsidy for certain politically-favored American corporations- especially corporations like Enron that lobbied hard and gave huge amounts of cash to both political parties. Its reward was more that $600 million in cash via six different Ex-Im financed projects.

The income tax was also not born out of a growing population. Please see this video to clear up your doubts.

I know, I'm rushing the end of this, but people also seem to be under the delusion that the income tax is the government's only source of revenue. There are many other taxes out there. We pay a tax whenever we buy something. There's also highway taxes, tarrifs, etc. The government can easily afford everything it needs if we cut back on government programs and stop being a bunch of freeloaders.

Free markets aren't the problem, they're the solution. The Federal Reserve has been manipulating our currency and causing bubbles. They've caused every depression and recession we've had in this country, and they constantly insist that the problem is the free market. They create the bubbles, corporation and government subsidies lead to the bad loans, etc., and then we wonder who's to blame! A government-regulated market, especially one who's currency cannot be measured by anything and manipulated, is doomed to failure. The solution is sound money and less government.

Does Obama Promote Real Change?

I'll start this one off with a humorous note before I go full swing into it.




Now, how is it that Obama is going to bring the "change" we need to America? Well, he's not. He's actually doing what's already been done and using his charismatic personality to win everyone over.

I know what you're saying right now. "But ハブネスーさん, Obama promised change, and he's already closed down Guantanamo Bay! Obviously things are looking up!"

The closing of Guantanamo Bay was, indeed, a very positive sign. He also plans on closing other CIA "black sites", which is also a very good thing. However, even the most rutheless dictators in history did a few positive actions. Look at Saddam Hussein, for example. Before he became a paranoid dictator, ready to gun down (or worse) anyone whom he thought might be after him, he did help rural farmers, and do a few other good things as well. Even Adolf Hilter did some good things! It doesn't change the fact that they were really horrible everywhere else. And I know some of you hate to admit it, but even George Bush did a few good things, but he also messed up.

What I'm trying to say is, Guantanamo Bay is, so far, one of the only good things I've actually seen him do. Let's check out his other policies.

Here we go, Obama is using our taxpayer money to fund organizations that provide abortions overseas! You can read my earlier post about this here. To summarize it, this is a huge waste of money! Why are we, in our own economic turmoil, even considering subsidizing other countries? It doesn't make much sense to me, and I doubt it makes sense to anyone else, either. This not only a case of taxation without representation, but it also has complicated moral issues. This is just more big government, not a very good change.

Here's another good one. Obama, during his campaign, said that he didn't promote wiretapping and spying on Americans. People were beginning to think 1984, and Obama assured everyone that he would reverse those policies. Well, it seems that since taking the oath he's changed his mind. Well, actually not, since his voting record shows that he favored the "extra security", but his words said different.

Now, the sick thing about this is that many of his supporters who feverishly cheered over his anti-spying stand are now actually trying to justify this! "If you're not a terrorist, then you shouldn't mind being monitored!" and "He's trying to protect your rights, not take them away!" are comments I'm typically told when I point this out to people.

May I ask, then, what happened to my right to privacy? Everyone else seems to be respecting privacy (hospitals, schools, etc.), but apparently the government is above that, like celebrities. First of all, this screams of Thought Police and cases of thoughtcrime. Second, we used to have a thing called "innocent until proven guilty." Moreover, these are the same This doesn't protect rights, it undermines them. If you don't enjoy reading, then instead of reading 1984, go watch V for Vendetta, although it's not as detailed.

Moving on, he's also attacked Pakistan without a declaration of war. 73% of Americans wanted the war to end. Obama said that he'd pull troops out of Iraq, but he also said that he'd move them to Afghanistan, so I have no idea where people get the Obama-is-the-peace-candidate crap. Anyway, he's gone and attacked Pakistan now, and it was a little tribe he attacked.

Now, people often say, "He has to protect us from terrorists!" Well, if that's the case then his new "transparent" government should tell us what we have to fear from Pakistan. He's bombing people, which in turn makes them hate us and want to kill us, and trying to tell us that he intends to promote peace among the nations. Am I missing something? He wants to end the War on Terror, but he's still going to carry on Bush's mission to root out terrorists all over the globe? You don't have to call it the War on Terror, but actions speak for themselves. Even some strong Democrats I know have called out this hypocracy!

Also, I'm tired of hearing everyone praise his stimulus plan. Is this any different from George Bush's bailout? It's taken the problem to an extreme by printing off even more money, devaluing the dollar, and inflating the currency. This isn't change, it's just dressing the same program up in fancy words and praying for a miracle.

You want change? I'll talk about change in my next post, during which I'll compare health care plans, etc. Right now Obama is changing small things that mostly undermine States' rights. State governments, in many ways, are more important than the Federal Government, but people don't tend to think this way. Everything must be done in the Federal level to please them! If that's the mentality, then how about we run the Constituion through a paper shredder and get rid of State governments? Then Obama can speak for all of us until he gets out of office!

Blog Introduction

I realized that my political articles were overcoming everything else on Nerdy Goodness, so I decided to start a solely political blog. It was supposed to have a cooler name, but they were all taken! Politicritic was my first choice, but it's been taken. I suppose this gives me incentive to check out about five other blogger blogs, all with the names I wanted.

Anyway, this blog will follow today's political events and I will give commentary. Most of this will be bashing Obama's policies, so if you worship the guy, I suggest to stay away! Then again, you may learn a thing or two, or at least be exposed to an opposing viewpoint. With that in mind, I promise that I will always try and use good, well-developed arguments to state my point, but I have a tendency to be sarcastic. You have been warned.

There will also be an abundance of Ron Paul on here, so I hope you really like to listen to him.

One last thing before I shut up. I'm importing all my political posts from my other blog onto this one.

Which Country is Obama Presient Of?

I pulled this article off of Prison Planet. I know, I know, it's a bunch of conspiracy stuff. Yes, Prison Planet excells in conspiracies, but I also have some respect for Alex Jones. He covered the inauguration perfectly!

Anyway, according to this article, our taxpayer money "to fund international 'family planning' groups who counsel women and perform abortions around the world, but mainly in Africa."

Here's a quick exerpt from it:

Obama will reverse the so-called Mexico City policy, the federal rule prohibiting aid to family planning groups which was instituted by Ronald Reagan in 1984. The policy does not apply to abortions carried out in cases of rape, incest, or life-threatening conditions. Obama’s executive order will pass almost exactly 36 years to the day since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.

So, I'm pretty sure that funding internation abortions specifically is still illegal, but this is certainly a gateway, and it's indirectly doing so. I could very easily go on a pro-life rant (although I'd say that I'm technically pro-choice, since I feel that the choice part comes before you decide to have unprotected sex), but the real problem here is why we're funding this overseas operation to begin with!

Obama is America's president, is he not? This is just more wasteful government spending, using our money to manage the lives of people who aren't even Americans. Can we not encourage other governments and nations to do this for their own people without us having to fund or subsidize everything? Amazingly, people don't seem to know that he plans to do this; everyone is still excited that he closed down Guantanamo Bay, and that he plans to close other secret prisons.

Granted, he's done a few good things in office, but his overall plan is downright disgusting! And this current peice of work is wasteful, immoral (strictly my opinion), and has nothing to do with our people. I'm not against helping people who need help, such as in the case of an emergency, but I believe charities and non-government organizations should do it, as they don't steal the money for themselves. "All aid is fungeable," Ron Paul once said. Yes, it is, especially in the hands of beaurocrats who like to pretend that they're helping the suffering. Church groups and other charities do more good overseas than them!

Our New King, Barack Obama

I'm extremely furious right now, so I might seem a bit incoherent at times. Forgive me, I'll have a better post coming up soon, but I just had to express my freedom of speech on this historical day of epic disappointment.

So, let's take the meat of this speech and we'll see what it boils down to.

"Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom."

He means the Founders, right? Those were the days when we were free, but I hardly consider our current state "free". We're close to a military state, and Obama holds in his hands bill on what can be considered Thought Crime. That's not freedom. Freedom is the ability to express ourselves, make our own choices, even if they may not necessarily be the best, and to live our lives. The government is not a babysitter, it is merely a protector from our enemies.

"They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction."

Socialist, anyone?

"We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished."

Okay, there's all kinds of things wrong with this. We are not the most prosperous nation on Earth any longer. Heck, we'd be bankrupt if we weren't printing off money at the speed of light and borrowing from China. If we followed a standard (say the gold standard) and spent the way we do, we'd never see the light of day!

Also, our military is stretched so thin that if someone were to attack us right now, we'd never ever be able to defend ourselves. We aren't strong, we're weak; but we insist on pretending that we're strong to remain somewhat intimidating. We want to be a force to be reckoned with, but right now we're little more than bullies and aggressors.

Let's not even get started on our capacity! Has anyone been keeping track of the unemployment rates?

"Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."

Yeah, if we had Ron Paul this may be a possibility. Pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and let the free world work its wonders! Wait a minute... Huh? Obama wants us to work towards a socialist ideal? He wants to get the government totally involved in our lives? That's not in this transcript, but anyone who has ever heard the guy speak in other speeches will know this to be true.

"The state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift. And we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth."

Does this involve letting more people keep their money by, say, sacking the income tax? Or maybe it means getting the government out of the market and letting it do what it's got to do to return to normalcy? Let me guess, it means pumping money into the market, creating bubbles and inflation, then hoping it evens out.

"We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality..."

Yeah, I've been waiting to see Dr. McCoy's little gadgets in action. So, where does holistic medicine lie in this crazy plan?

"We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age."

I actually don't mind the quest for alternative energy if it's done by private companies, but it sounds to me like he really wants more government involvement in education. Hey, Obama! Did you know schools are failing because of these government standards? Individualized education is undermined, teachers spend way too much time trying to pick out students with "mental illness", and lessons are rushed through. Don't even get me started on education!

"All this we can do. All this we will do."

Lord, please help us. They know not what they do!

"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage."

Yeah, because our government isn't supposed to be involved in everything! The governments role is a) secure our borders, and b) secure our liberties. I see no room for "big plans" on a federal level.

Oh, and my memory isn't short. I've seen what our country has already done and the mess it's gotten us into. And free men and women joining for a common purpose is contradictory, because this purpose is a government mandate.

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

Wow, just a few paragraphs ago, he praised the Founders for creating such a prosperous government. Now he's saying that it may not work? Also, it's not the governments job to ensure my comfort, it's mine. I live in poverty, and I intend to pull myself out all by myself. I don't need Obama to subsidize me, and I don't need him to tell me how to take care of myself.

"But this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous."

Again, this is a problem created by government intervention, namely by letting the Federal Reserve do as it pleases. The gold standard would fix this, the market doesn't need a watchful eye.

"The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good."

Dear me, more socialsim. This guy sounds like he grew up on Star Trek. As much as I love the show, let's not let it influence us politically. I intend on writing an article about this in the future. Maybe one for Avatar and its freedom positions as a contrast.

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."

Then why, pray tell, did he vote for extending the Patriot Act?

"And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more."

Something finally made sense! It's contradictory to some of his other statements made of seperate occasions, but at least he's trying to play the role of a peace-keeper and not a war monger. How long before the true colors shine, I wonder.

"We are the keepers of this legacy, guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We'll begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard- earned peace in Afghanistan."

Dang, he just contradicted himself. Here I thought we'd have a non-intervention foreign policy that promoted free trade and mutal respect.

"With old friends and former foes, we'll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat and roll back the specter of a warming planet."

Ignoring the warming planet bogus, it sounds like he's trying to contract himself yet again! Then again, maybe this falls into his intervention plan, too.

"And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, 'Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.'"

You know, for a guy trying to make peace with former foes, he certainly knows how to play the intimidation card, doesn't he?

"And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace."

Sounds like a New World Order, doesn't it? I refuse to cooperate.

"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

So this means that when I pass out my pamphlets and articles tomorrow morning to high school students, I won't be stopped? Great!

"To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds."

We can start by breaking down those unneeded bases that use up their resources and poison their land. Then, we can let the Red Cross and other charity organizations help these poor people out. I'm not against helping the needy, but the government has a habbit of embezelling that money.

"As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages.

"We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service: a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves."

More socialist ideals permeating the brains of Americans. Besides, they aren't guarding our liberty or anyone else's - they're working to protect our overseas interests, which don't include our liberties, and to topple leaders and prop up new ones. We shouldn't be there in the first place.

"Our challenges may be new, the instruments with which we meet them may be new, but those values upon which our success depends, honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old."

The challenges are old, too. Doesn't anyone study history?

Well, those are all the interesting exerpts. Why was this a great speech? For a guy who wants to be like Honest Abe, I half expected his speech to begin with, "Four score and seven years ago..." Unfortunately, it wasn't that intelligent.

More on this later, though. I need to cool down a bit.