Monday, July 9, 2007

Ron Paul's Speech To Congress 5/22

Ron Paul... keeping it real!

I have to do some checking on Mr. Paul, but this speech, and the text of his website,, gives me hope that all is not lost here in America.

Be sure to check it out!

Kumo the Dude.


tba said...

I love reading transcripts of Paul's speeches in Congress. I till can't believe that they allow him to speak the truth like that.

Dr. Paul will not be the panacea but his election will be a step in the right direction. The government is so screwed up and the psychology of the public is so pro-government thaat an attempt to repeal all of the anti-Ameerican, anti-constitution laws and federal programs will cause such an outcry that they would impeach him before he could run for a second term (that's assuming that he didn't have an "accidental death" or a "mortal heart attack" before impeachment procedures).

I expect that as Ron Paul gets more popular he will moderate his views on getting rid of federal programs and the FRB as he get hammered by the media (FoxNews included) and will be seen as too extreme by those who cannot think for themselves and/or who love security too much.

tba said...

GREAT SPEECH!! This is America's opportunity to show much they love freedom.

I hate the fact that looks play so large a role in presidential elections. I fear the fact that his message will fall on deaf ears simply because Ron Paul doesn't have that dominant, alpha male aura about him. Ron Paul is a soft-spoken Nice Guy but his ideas align with the original purpose of our Founding Fathers.

Sometimes I wish the television was never created. Because of television, how a candidate looks plays a MAJOR role in elections. I mean, why the heck are we talking about John Edward's haircuts?

Kumogakure said...


I dont give a fludge about how Johnny E looks... but women care a whole heck of a lot.

And they are the MAJORITY of voters ya???

Some peeps I know advocate stripping women of their right to vote.

While I can't agree with that idea in principle, I can understand why they would think that way.

While some women are really looking at issues, the vast majority couldn't care less. They are looking for that Alpha Male figure that you mentioned earlier.

Damn shame ain't it?

LtRand said...

See, I think the problem with Dr. Paul's message isn't the ideas, but the presentation.

People just can't even fathom what life would be like without all of these unConstitutional functions, and that is what he needs to concentrate on if he's going to get anyone besides Libertarian's to vote for him. That's what he'll need to concentrate on, portraying what life can be like without these functions. To tell them that they can have the same, or better, standard of living without these functions and how that will work.

Like National Health Care. Noone even talks about just making it so cheap that even the poor could afford it. That's what he needs to do, tell them that he plans on raising the buying power of the dollar so that living isn't so damned expensive.

tba said...

I'm sorry Kumo but I support the idea of stripping women of the right to vote. If we except the natural psychological differences between men and women, if we except that (on the whole) men value independence while wonen value security then it is IMPERATIVE that we do this. I remember reading about a survey where men and women were questioned on their views about the size of government. Guess what was the result? For men, 70% supported SMALL government while 48% of women supported LARGER government. but I don't have the link.

I think there 2 misconceptions about voting: 1. that it is a right, and 2. that it works.

1. Votign is not an inherent good nor is it a "right". It is not a prerequisite for happiness. Humnsns (for the most part) were able to get along for millenia without it (not perfectly, of course). Proof that voting is not a right is that more than half of the population are able to get along fine without voting. And that's just the general elections. For local elections, the participation rate is FAR FAR less (often less than a quarter participation). In contrast, how can we as a society function without a freedom of speech? Of property? Of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? So if voting isn't a 'right' then what is it?

2. At best it is an imperfect privilege of teh informed. At it's worst it is a SHAM tool FORCED upon citizens by tyrants to legitimize their government. Sometimes people are forced to vote. I remember a report on the news about how Saddam (or Chavez?) received near 100 percent vote for him. And let's not forget the fact that Hitler was ELECTED into office. Then there's the fact that with current technology the possibility of voter fraud and the rigging of elections are real. It may have even happened in this country in some local election (or even during the past two national elections).

I would much rather NOT have the right to vote and be free than have the right to vote. I believe in Switzerland, those who immigrate to that country are not given the right to vote yet people want to go there. Also, let's not forget the fact that prior to universal suffrage MOST men and women could not vote yet as a whole were much freer. Voting gives people the right to be their own oppresors. And it doesn't even ensure that the people we elect will commit to their campaign promises.

But the idea of stripping women the right to vote WILL NOT HAPPEN. Acknowledging this fact, we've got to change our voting laws.

The first thing that needs to be done is RAISE THE VOTING AGE to at least 26. The contitution doesn't allow anyone to run for Congress until that age, so 26 should be the minimum voting age (this wuold exclude me since I'm not yet that old).

We also have to return to Senators being elected by their states instead of the people. This will probably have the effect of Congress and States becoming more independent of the presidency and thus more willing to speak out against unconstitutional policies.

Other things that we can do is require people to own property before being able to vote, and maybe only have married women as voters.

tba said...

Rand, I agree with you that is presentation is off. but not everyone is blessed with that skill. For that to be the requirement runs the risk of us electing a charismatic despot. Clinton was charismatic, FDR was charismatic, and Hitler rose to power due to his charisma.

But even if Ron Paul were able to present his ideas so that everyone could understand most people would reject it. Most people value security over freedom. The ONLY time people will get angry i when their entertain or their property i threatened (that eminent domain case by the Supreme Court). I think the greatest endictment against love of freedom that people supposedly have is the fact that it took so long for a government like America's founding to develop. That there is only ONE Ron Paul in Congress is also proof and that there are so few Libertarians, Objectivists, and other freedom loving groups of people.

I remember reading an Article on about why Socialism still exists after it has been so thoroughly debunked The problem with Libertarians is that they assume that man is a rational animal. The capability of reason does not necessary dictate that reason is being used. Man is not a rational animal but a rationalizing one.

The reason why humans aren't rational is because reason presupposes ACTIVE choice, which presupposes consequences for those choices. And this is probably at the heart of why freedom is not valued.

If you want to be free you must accept responsiblity for your own actions. Free governments are rare and monarchies have ruled the world since the beginning because people are not burdened with choice.

The people do not elect monarchs, therefore if a bad one arises the people are not reponsible. BUT if when a people elects an oppresive president however, that is a major wound to a person's pride. Think of the many conservatives kicking themselves for electing Bush Jr (if it wasn't for the fact that I didn't know what an absentee ballot was, I would've voted for him too in 2000). Think of the people who grieved over the fact taht they elected HITLER. People fear making choices like that so thus security rules the mindset.

Another example of people fearing choice are company 401(k)s and mututal funds. The more options people have the less likely are they going to take advantage of a 401k. And Apple computer is probably popular because it limits choice. Heck, even in choosing what restaurant to go to or what to order most people have a few that they always go to and order. I certainly do. I don't like spending time testing other foods to see if they are good. If they aren't I get pissed. I always order root beer for my drink and some food with chicken.

Women are notorious for hating choice because they do not want the responsibility. Hence, teh man must always make the deciions or her friends must make them for her.

I think a great psychological inquiry that I recently read on why people hate freedom and only want security is the chapter called "The Grand Inquisitor" in Dostoyevsky's book "The Brother's Karamoov". In that chapter it is specifically about religion but I think the ideas can be universalized to most things from government to business to family and to entertainment.

Kumogakure said...

TBA and Itrand,

Quality comments!

I gotta put my two cents in later on.

LtRand said...


I'm not saying it SHOULD be a requirement, only that it's what it's going to take, right or wrong.

He's got Charisma, the man is blessed with it. He'd fit right in during our Framer's time period and do well.

The thing is he must project his/our position as the best alternative for people to try to give up some security for liberty. Overall though, I do agree with your assessment. Conservative or Liberal, they are both moving towards security and away from liberty. If we are to survive, we need to bring in an alternative.

I'd also like to see places like Mises and CATO start funding libertarian politicians for office. Getting more RP's in there could help the push needed.

Overall though, I look at RP's following, and it's hard not to see the resembelance between his movement and what happened with Barry Goldwater.

tba said...

I think a lot of people's fears of TRUE freedom can remedied with an HONEST teaching of the Constitution in the schools as was intended by the Founders starting with elementary students. THe Federalist Papers ought to be tought as well.

Sound economic theory needs to be taught and personal finance for HS students are needed so that can they can learn to manage their money and not need to lean of the State.

Examples should also be given on how more government often creates more problems.

Ron Paul would definitely fit in with our framers. With the television age, I doubt many of the Founders would be able to fit with today's society. John Adams for example, would NEVER have been elected because he was too short (5'4"). George Washington had wooden teeth so our national hero wouldn't have been elected either. Benjamin franklin would've been too fat.

The only founder that I can think of who's closest to today's society is Alexander Hamilton as he was a big proponet of strong government and he wasn't even born in this country. I can't say much about the rest of the Founders physically.

Andrew Jackson, thought not a founder, wouldn't be elected cuz he wouldn't be characterized as an uncivilized redneck. Yet we need of his strength to fight the Federal Reserve Bank.

I don't know much about Barry Goldwater and his presidential run. One thing that I have read about him that lowers his character in my eyes (from what I've read) is the fact he was pro-life in public yet in private he sent his daughter to a doctor to get an abortion. I'm VERY pro-life but I would rather someone be pro-choice than a pro-life hypocrite.

tba said...

correction: i meant to say that Jackson WOULD probably be characterized as an uncivilized redneck.

LtRand said...

When I contemplate how our previous generations were able to correct many of the wrongs of their day and how we keep adding wrongs, I can't help to think that media plays the biggest role in it.

People's minds are saturated daily with corperate/big government messages to such a point that our populace has become conditioned to respond automatically, I won't say think because it's a lack of thought, that any other solution is not feasible.

julie said...

Hi Kumo, and this is also for TBA and Rob Fedders and Counter Ffeminist. Are you guys up for another challenge?

Our right wing peole in NZ don't know what goes on because they have only heard for angry males and have disrespected them. Also our feminists have done the same. I could really do with some help because they are listening to moderation and reasoning without anger. I could give you some websites.

Kumogakure said...


Let me know where, and I will do my best to stop by!

julie said...

It will be after the 20th because something else is happening. I mean't to add Itrand and HL and Mikeray and Brydye also.

I will be back with the best sites in a week. BTW, thanx.