Just Logic: Dr. Ron Paul

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

Friday, December 9, 2011

Understanding Ron Paul: 9/11 & Blowback

By Dan Beaulieu

"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect" – Ron Paul

One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.

For this reason I present to you my series:

Understanding Ron Paul

9/11 & Blowback

9/11 is an evasive subject for many, fortified under a coveted veil of loyalty. Akin to the contumacious devotion a mother has to her child. As she turns her head away from any undesirable realities that may ensue; we simply believe in our beloved’s innocence. Regardless of your stance on 9/11, we owe it to the men, women and children who died that day to investigate the available facts, to disconnect the mother-child temperament, if only for a moment, to perhaps enlighten ourselves to a superior wavelength, or maybe to simply solidify our prior convictions. It’s been 10 years and I think we’re strong enough now to take the blinders off.

Osama Bin Laden was a terrible person for the hell he bestowed upon us, no doubt. It wasn’t just the single act of violence that took place on 9/11. It's the decade of lost freedoms, fear, perpetual war, nation-building and militarism persued by our government and private interests that are fighting (aka profiting from) "the war on terror".

This has provided Osama with success on two counts: One, that he wanted to destroy our economy. Two, That he wanted us on his land so that he could "target us better". Unfortunately, we fell right into the trap that Osama laid for us. It was a maniacal and calculated plan to collapse us. But what was the reason?

As a nation living with the “mother-child” mentality we seemed to be fine with the answer that George W. Bush gave to congress on September 20^th of 2001, "They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other". (1) No fact, no real substance behind it, just the knowledge that it would pull hard on our heartstrings and rally our support to go to war.

I think today we are strong enough to listen to another view as to why the attacks took place. A more probable view backed up with fact, substance and conviction. That is, the view of Osama Bin Laden himself in 2002:

"While seeking Allah's help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
(Q2) What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily. “

…

“(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.”

…

“(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.”

It goes on… (2)

Is it really so hard to believe that due to our foreign policy of intervention, choosing allies, occupation and war that we would one day experience some form of blow-back? It wasn't just the past 10 or 20 years, Palestine has been under foreign occupation for more than 80 years, and we assisted that occupation every step of the way. Did we really get attacked on September 11th simply due to the fact that we are free? I think we all know the answer, but can we break away from the “mother-child” mentality long enough to admit it?

Back to Understanding Ron Paul Index

Follow @transfer_point

(1) In an attempt to keep this writing short I won’t go into the possible reasons as to why George Bush Jr. would lead us from the truth but I will provide you with a link to a great writing I found informative written by a respected Theologian Dr. David Ray Griffin (Link)

(2) Osama Bin Laden goes on to explain in detail exactly what we did to make them attack us on 9/11. Read more here: (Osama's Letter)

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Ron Paul National Campaign Chairman Blasts CBS News

SPARTANBURG, S.C. – Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton released the following statement concerning the CBS / National Journal Republican debate:

“Ron Paul consistently polls among the top three in the key early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. He is polling in double digits in most respected polls.

“Congressman Paul is ranked among the top three in fundraising results.

“Congressman Paul serves on the House Foreign Relations Committee.

“Congressman Paul is a veteran.

“And, Congressman Paul has contrasting views on foreign policy that many Americans find worthy of inquiry and discussion.

“CBS's treatment of Congressman Paul is disgraceful, especially given that tonight’s debate centered on foreign policy and national security.

“Congressman Paul was only allocated 90 seconds of speaking in one televised hour. If we are to have an authentic national conversation on issues such as security and defense, we can and must do better to ensure that all voices are heard.

“CBS News, in their arrogance, may think they can choose the next president. Fortunately, the people of Iowa, New Hampshire, and across America get to vote and not the media elites.”

blog.4president.org/

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Herman Cain: Why You Can't Run Government Like A Business

Saturday, October 8, 2011

GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul Win's Values Voter Summit Straw Poll in in DC

Ron Paul won yet another straw poll which, once again, serves to solidify his place in the lead. Since we all know the mainstream media won't report this victory as their media darling puppets didn't win, I believe it's up to the grassroots to do their jobs for them.

Here's the video of Ron's Peach at the Values Voter Summit Straw Poll.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Is Ron Paul Wrong About 9/11?

Dan Beaulieu

09/13/2011
Reddit
Digg

"While seeking Allah's help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
(Q2) What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

…

“(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.”

…

It goes on… (2)

(2) Osama Bin Laden goes on to explain in detail exactly what we did to make them attack us on 9/11. Read more here: (Osama's Letter)

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Rebuttal: Republicans Vs. Economics

Rebutting: Republicans Vs. Economics by Jacob Weisberg

By: Dan Beaulieu

09/11/2011

Reddit (vote up)

As clear logical thinking people, we must transcend the notion that a good idea has to be wrapped in a blue or red package. We cannot move forward as a species if we can’t break free of the paradigm and defeat the duopoly that confines and defines our school of thought. The only thing that can come from this is spiteful narrow minded results that makes its bed in blissful denial. I am not, by definition, a republican, libertarian or a democrat. I am an iconoclast of sorts.

Now for the rebuttal.

Although your entry was well planned out and was an overall good read, it was also partisan to a fault. That is, it rallies to the blue team to such an extent that it denies your readers of obvious truths. The reality is that neither side would have stopped the default, nor would they have turned the economy around. The problem is Keynesian economics as a whole.

The economic bubble has been forming for years due to the quantitative easing efforts of Alan Greenspan as he forced interest rates down. Quantitative Easing is when the central bank (the Federal Reserve), buys up financial assets to inject our fiat currency into our cash pool. (Quantitative Easing Explained)

Obama’s Stimulus Packages are an extreme form of Quantitative Easing, where the government simply injects an exorbitantly large amount of fiat money into the economy. To some that sounds like a good thing, more money = more prosperity, right? Unfortunately this isn’t how it works, for every dollar the fed injects our total money supply is devalued by that amount. So essentially there is no gain, just a huge loss of value.

So, despite your arbitrary praise of the Democratic Party and despite the other “team” blaming Obama for the collapse. This was doomed to happen regardless of who was in office due to the poor economic policy of “central economic planning”. What caused this was the long-term ritual of devaluing the dollar.

Now here’s a hard truth about Obama’s economic policy and stimulus. In 1971 gold was $38 an ounce, this is when we went off the gold standard. 37 years later, just before Obama took office (2008) gold was $737 an ounce. Now, just 3.5 years later, due to Obama’s immense stimulus, gold is at $1895 an ounce.

Take that in. Set aside all bias and partisanship and look at the situation logically. In 3.5 years under Obama’s administration gold went up by $1158, whereas in the previous 37 years it only raised a mere $699. Ask yourself has Obama’s stimulus really helped? I think the answer is obvious and to ignore this is just an act of pure partisan denial.

Let me briefly explain why raising taxes in a recession would only hurt the economy, this is simple, undeniable logic... Let’s say the average paycheck is $500.00/week (gross) and after 29% taxes the take home is $355.00/week. Let’s also say this person’s bills are $275.00/week. That leaves him with a spending limit of $80 per week. So at the end of the week this individual has $80 to essentially pump into the local economy. Now let’s raise taxes on this person to say 34%. Now that changes his take home from $355 to $330/week, thus reducing his additional spending cash to $55/week. Now, is this person more likely to go out and spend money or less likely? $25 isn’t much of a difference but extrapolate that by 300,000,000. That damages true economic growth substantially.

I would just like to clarify, that the notion that the money still exists within our government and that the government will still use this money in an effective way is just senseless. There has been no solid evidence of fiscal responsibility in the past as our government has been seen on countless occasions throwing money to the wind. An individual spending his money on what he/she wants is what determines the market. The government can manipulate the market with our tax dollars to an extent but it usually creates a false sense of prosperity for “choice companies” and thus, doesn’t last as we can tell from recent history.

I am curious to know if you actually know anyone who owns a small business and how hard it is for them to function with the heavy taxes and regulations that they succumb to. Do you really believe that deregulating and shrinking the federal register will actually hurt the economy? If so, please explain.

I’d like to loosely quote the founder of Home Depot (who obviously knows a few things about running a successful business) as saying, “I don’t believe the miracle of Home Depot could be repeated in this day and age due to the current regulatory system”. But what does he know, he’s only made 1,000 millionaires in his day.

Regarding your comment:

“Mark Zandi, the Moody's chief economist who was John McCain's economic adviser, judged that the Obama stimulus passed in 2009 kept unemployment from rising two percentage points higher. He says that the president's new proposal would boost GDP by 2 percent and reduce unemployment by 1.9 million jobs.”

First the evidence of this is theoretical as one cannot see into the future, only assume projections of what they believe, or would lead you to believe, to rally support. So, I contest that if Obama hadn’t injected the money that our recession would almost be over. Instead, at this rate and with your mentality, we will be in a recession for the next 10 years. The injection of money into our economy simply gave us a false sense of prosperity. I know this because several noted economists predicted the collapse of these bubbles in 2002. They also predicted what would happen if the stimulus package went through.

If you could Jacob Weisberg, would you please produce a link to an article of ANY Democrat leader who had actually predicted and warned us about the collapse of our economy? That was a loaded question, as I know that there weren’t any. The only public figures who were documented as seeing the collapse were Peter Schiff, Ron Paul and Gerald Celente. (videos)

I don’t believe that Obama is a stupid person economically speaking, I believe he has a motive behind crashing the economy. But that is a topic for another blog.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Barrak Obama vs. Ron Paul: Same Message Different Messenger

By Dan Beaulieu

Reddit (Vote Up)

I find it amusing the similarities between Obama’s “Change” platform that won him the presidency versus Ron Paul’s noninterventionist ideology, and how they garner very different responses. The popular “Anti-War” platform, not dissimilar to George Bush Jr.’s winning platform in 2000, has been used for years. Presidential candidates often speak of a humble foreign policy and peaceful trade; ralling the people together on the notion of peace and ride the waves of praise all the way into the White House. This could only lead one to the conclusion: the people of the Unites States are tired of war and want real change.

I’ll never forget the images from the 2008 election during Obama’s acceptance speech of so many people crying and hugging, rejoicing in the prospect of “Change”. The idea of peace and trade even won Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples", which has only become controversy since his election as our military presence has grown exponentially and our image around the world only desecrated. Notwithstanding, the American people obviously trusted that Obama would bring home the troops.

So curious is the distinct contrast in people’s reaction to these nearly identical messages, but why? Both of these men in suits champion a noble and humane ideology. However, when Dr. Ron Paul mentions the notion of “minding our own business”, a notion well understood by children on the playground, or “staying out of other countries affairs” he is dismissed as the crazy isolationist loon or Uncle Ronny.

Let’s establish now that he’s certainly not being discredited as Ron the“Crazy Uncle” due to his philosophy on economics, as it’s general knowledge that he predicted the housing bubble collapse of 2008 way back in 2001 (see video) and has been warning us of a full economic collapse since the 1980’s (see video) due to quantitative easing and inflation, not to mention he’s the only candidate with a strategy to actually fix the economy. Ron Paul has announced a plan to cut the deficit by $1 trillion dollars immediately, he understand the severity of the issues.

So one must ask the question, why exactly is he being discriminated with such a similar stance on war to Obama and Bush Jr.? Which such a superior economic understanding that ANY president we've had in probably the last century. Is there a dynamic that we are missing? I understand that there is more to it than meets the eye.

Part of this dynamic is that Dr. Paul isn’t just another “man in a suit”. Unlike the other nominees, when he speaks he speaks with substance, not simply campaign winning rhetoric and canned responses. As previously stated by Doug Wead, Ron Paul’s campaign advisor, Ron doesn’t rehearse responses, that are specifically designed to appeal to you, with coaches behind the scenes. He constructs his answers right there, in the hot seat, and in front of millions of people. Furthermore, unlike George Bush Jr. and Barrak Obama, Ron Paul’s rock solid and principled voting record that spans 30 years suggests that he would actually follow through and produce real, principled and logical transformations that would shake the establishment. Changes that the establishment simply will not have. But then, what exactly is the establishment and how does it alter the general public opinion? This is the other part of the dynamic.

The establishment is the federal government, large corporations, the military and “The Big 6”. To quote www.freepress.net on the subject, “The U.S. media landscape is dominated by massive corporations that, through a history of mergers and acquisitions, have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read.” What that actually means is that they are able to depict events, by a series of tiny manipulations or misrepresentations, to best suit their interests.

How this relates to “Crazy Uncle” Ron is very simple, let’s take General Electric for example. They own many things including mainstream news outlets like NBC, MSNBC, USA , CNBC, etc, etc. They produce many electronic devices such as explosion detection systems for the Military and aviation systems for the Navy. General Electric (NBC) also makes many of the engines for the Military fighters, helicopters and transports. But what they make the most money from is weapons and ammunition. You can’t have munitions sales without a war (preferably perpetual war) and you simply can’t have a war with Ron Paul as president.*

So even in championing the same anti-war message, Ron Paul, through many small manipulations and misrepresentations in data, becomes the “Crazy Uncle” whereas the obvious lapdog Obama becomes a Nobel Peace Prize winner for speaking essentially the same message, the difference was intent. Ron Paul intends on ending these wars. (Which may be why he gets more donations from the Military troops than all of the GOP candidates combined.)

Break the paradigm, seek alternative press and support Ron Paul in 2012.

*Ron Paul’s stance on war is that you don’t go to into needless wars. If war is necessary, however, you don’t go without a declaration and congressional approval. The declaration must also include the definition of the enemy so the war can actually be won unlike the war on terror, you can never win a war on an inanimate object. Once that’s established you get your troops in, you win and you come home. No nation building and No endless wars.