Skip to content

24 Reasons for Liberals to Write in Ron Paul or Refuse to Vote in 2012

September 16, 2012

24 Reasons for Liberals to Write in Ron Paul or Refuse to Vote in 2012

By Progress Hawk

(A Cry for Protest/Study Guide)


(NOTE: The Chapters are also divided into seperate posts which can be individually accessed on the right column)


#1 – Why I am a “Liberal”

#2 – There is no Lesser of Two Evils

#3 – Ron Paul is not a “Republican”

#4 – Ron Paul is the Only One Who Cares about the Poor

#5 – Ron Paul Has the Most Progressive Tax Policy

#6 – Nobody is a Greater Threat to Big Business and The FED

#7 – Ron Paul Wants Real Healthcare for All

#8 – Ron Paul is Hip to Alternative Medicine and Organic Foods

#9 – Libertarianism, Socialism, Capitalism and Other Isms

#10 – Ron Paul is Not the Tea Party, and Neither is… The Tea Party

#11 – All of the Mainstream Media Lie, Even the Ones You Like

#12 – Ron Paul is the Most Green Candidate

#13 – Barack Obama Is Not Your Ex-Boyfriend!

#14 – Ron Paul is not Anti-Immigration and NOT and Isolationist!

#15 – Paul is NOT Racist. He Would Do More for People of Color than Obama

#16 – The Real Reasons to  End the War on Drugs

#17 – Ron Paul wants Quality Education for All

#18 – Ron Paul is the best for Equal Rights

#19 – Gun Control- The Liberal’s Drug War

#20 – Let’s Get Rid of the CIA. No, Seriously…

#21 – The Government is Trying to Poison You

#22 – Don’t Be Thrown off by the Abortion Issue

#23 – Ignore His Son Rand – NOT the Same

#24 – Why Vote for Someone Who “Can’t Win?”



I am a life-long self-identified liberal/progressive because of how I interpret my own set of values. In the end it’s just a meaningless label that has no real consistency throughout history. Many do not realize that there is a strong anti-war tradition in the republican party, and it is also the party that ended slavery, so in the end, who cares which “side” the correct ideas come from, as long as they are the correct ideas? The-two party system of today is actually under the control of the corporate establishment and it’s used to manipulate the public into fighting against each other, while supporting the same militaristic corporate agenda. Through the uses of televised debates and propaganda, this is part of an age old divide -and-conquer strategy, essentially designed to confuse us, and it has remained very effective over these last decades, mostly by creating the illusion of choice.

The purpose of this essay is to explain in bullet-point why I believe that Ron Paul best serves all of my core values as a liberal.  I will explain exactly why his initiatives and proposals make him the most progressive candidate running for president, even though he identifies his value system from a conservative stand point (which he only means in the oldest traditional sense of the word -not at all what you think of as “conservative” today, and not sinister in any sense). Then I will systematically address all of the myths that most liberals believe about him, and explain exactly why you cannot believe what any of the mainstream media say about him, no matter which side it’s coming from. I will explain in detail why the establishment is so afraid of Ron Paul and intent on destroying him, why there is absolutely no difference between voting for Romney and voting for Obama, and that the only way to stop the war machine, drastically reduce poverty, get healthcare to those who lack it and protect our environment, is to not vote at all in 2012, or write in Ron Paul.

I know those are very difficult pills to swallow or come to terms with because for years I believed in the -lesser of two evils- argument. I liked Ron Paul in 2008, but I was overwhelmed with my hate for neocons like Bush/Cheney and McCain/Palin, Romney etc, but what I’ve learned is that there’s no real difference.  I know it’s almost impossible to imagine that Obama himself is actually a neocon, but I beg you to please hear me out and do your best to approach the information I’m going to share with an open mind. The truth is that Obama, much to my own disappointment, is just as dangerous and destructive as George W. Bush, and Ron Paul is in fact the next JFK. That’s right… A “republican” is the John F. Kennedy of our generation, as strange as that sounds.

At the end I will provide a list of the most fascinating and important, freely available videos and documentaries available online that will challenge the way you think and direct you to a world of resources that you can investigate analyze and judge for yourself. Let me make it clear that this is a badly written INFORMAL essay. Yes I will use all caps to illustrate my tone and I don’t care if that’s annoying. There will be spelling and grammar issues, sloppy sentences, and it probably isn’t 100% accurate. But there is enough truth to what I’ll share to make it worthy of consideration. Sorry I didn’t start this a year earlier.

I’m not going to bother citing all of my claims in this essay, but if you have questions about any of the specifics, I will be happy to engage in discussions and back up any points with sources and documentation to the best of my ability. Pretty much everything will be covered in the numerous links that I’ll be providing though, and we all have the tools to do our own research, as long as the internet is protected that is…

Let’s get started.

#1 – Why I am a “Liberal”

First, a quick explanation about why I consider myself a liberal. Actually, I don’t like that term anymore, because too many liberals, I’ve learned, are very -liberal- about where they stand on the issues. I voted for Obama to END the wars, end warrantless wire tapping, stop the torture and secret prisons, stop the hugely destructive and racist drug war, get healthcare to everyone, and, most of all, hold the big bankers and CEOs on Wall Street accountable for destroying this country with their massive fraud, because that’s exactly what they did. Obama has done none of that, and I hear too many Liberals say things like “well, we can’t just leave Iraq and Afghanistan,’ and we can’t have actual universal healthcare.” Where did all of the fire go? What about change? What about “yes we can?” Guess we can’t?

So, that’s what I’ve come to understand as “liberal.” I usually stick to the word progressive, because what I tend to philosophically value the most is progress with regard to social issues such as equal rights. Things like gender equality, marriage equality and racial equality are very important to me. But I’m not interested in new “programs” or PC propaganda paid for by our taxes. Those approaches do nothing. I’m interested in addressing social problems at their root, namely by ending the war on drugs along with the structural oppression of our monetary system, which is tremendously unfair to people of color and enhances our socially crippling racial divide.

I am strictly anti-war. Not pretend anti-war… Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing but gratitude for the soldiers who put their lives on the line for our country, but the fact that so many are willing to do that just makes the abuse of their sacrifice so much more unforgivable in my view. Nobody’s sons or daughters should be sent to fight and die in a banksters war. War is a geo-political profit machine and has nothing to do with our freedom, our safety or 9/11 (even remotely). It never did. Period. Everyone knows this now, even if they’re in denial about it, or turning a blind eye with the rest of the public.

I also care deeply about the environment and I believe very firmly that we are destroying the planet very rapidly with all of our inefficiencies, which are inevitable in our current system. I don’t care what anyone believes about global warming. By the end of this you’ll see why that entire discussion has become largely irrelevant and a distraction to the point. The planet is in serious danger and something needs to be done. The question is what. It’s a very complicated and important discussion, but willful ignorance and emotional defensiveness will not get us anywhere. I want whatever will best address the problem, not what is “intended’ to address it, or more likely, just another profit scheme under the “green” label.

Poverty is the other biggy and sort of an all encompassing matter and it’s important to note that as a principle I do not blame poverty on the poor, and neither does Ron Paul as you will find out. Like Paul, I blame it on the system that perpetuates it and is tilted to favor the top 1%. I want whatever policies will bring the most progress to these areas, no matter what party or label they are associated with because you will see that it means nothing.

#2 -There is No Lesser of Two Evils. Your Vote does NOTHING.

One of my liberal friends asked me if I’m a republican now because I’m voting for Ron Paul; an alarming assumption. You are what you eat, not what you vote. Would you vote for Joe Liberman just because he’s a “democrat”? Another friend accused me of going too far when I stated that under Obama we got four more years of Bush. My immediate thought was: how many more wars do we have to start before you “moderates” get angry?

Then I remembered that almost all of my liberal friends get their information from TV news and corporate media such as the New York Times (the few who still read things). These people have been told repeatedly that Obama is “withdrawing” our military forces and has a “timetable” for ending our involvement, which is pure comedy as far as I’m concerned, considering the fact that we have an embassy the size of the Vatican in Iraq. It’s also become clear that most people don’t even have the slightest clue how many countries we’re actually fighting in today, because I get a blank stare whenever I ask the question.

Since we don’t like to follow the constitution, we don’t need a declaration of war to actually engage in it, and we haven’t since WW2. So, we can be fighting and dying and killing with our troops in a country and engaging in acts of war with sanctions, no fly zones, drone attacks, deadly raids and so on, without even technically being at war with them. The real question is: how many countries are we fighting and killing in with our military forces? The truth is that we’re currently fighting about 8 different countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Korea, Lybia, Yemen, now across the continent of Africa, and by the time I finish writing this, we’ll be bombing Syria too, while provoking a number of others, such as Iran. Not to mention the other 120 countries where we have bases and personnel… What do you think we’re doing in all of these places? Are we just over there being non-isolationists?

What we weren’t told by the corporate media about the big “draw down” is that the 50,000 troops Obama withdrew from Iraq were immediately sent to Afghanistan for another Bush-like “surge,” and then replaced by 100,000 private military contractors, to protect military bases, business operations, and carry out deadly missions in heavy combat zones. So what we have is not only a continuation of the Bush Doctrine (to occupy the entire middle east, controlling all regions with oil and other valuable resources creating terrorists in the process), but it’s also an escalation of the same neo-colonial agenda under Obama. It’s just being done under the use of different language by those who can manipulate the national discussion. Some say this is the necessary cost of war, which is easy when it isn’t their family’s faces being blown off, but I’m preaching to the choir about this, right? I just don’t know about that anymore. Through Obama, the powers that be have successfully neutered the anti-war movement. The war machine is alive and well, and is not going to be ending with the lives of more soldiers and civilians.

On a strictly domestic level though, how many things about your life are actually different today than they were 6-8 years ago? Can you name one thing? I can’t. My healthcare still sucks, but I am one of the few among my peers who are lucky enough to have I, and gas is too expensive, but this is beside the point. Exactly where is your participation occurring and how has your vote influenced anything that’s happened in this country? Did we vote for the military escalations? Did we vote for the bailout, which transferred wealth from the poor to the top 1% (who ironically like to sling the word socialism around)? Did we vote for their six-figure bonuses while families around the country lost everything? Did we vote for the Federal Reserve to give upwards of $13 trillion to these institutions, to get them out of the mess they created, instead of fixing the country and helping all of the victims their crime?

During one of this year’s primary debates, Ron Paul stated that if we were going to give someone money, it should have been the people who lost their jobs and houses. Could any liberal possibly disagree with that? Plus, I thought we voted to punish these assholes in 2008, but there has not been one single criminal conviction among the largest financial institutions and nobody on Wall Street has been held accountable for their actions, nor have any of the war criminals of the previous administration. This is not what I voted for. In fact everything I was screaming about under Bush, from unwarranted wiretapping and secret prisons, to privatized war and third-party healthcare, are the exact same problems that I’m screaming about today. We’re still spending billions on these wars, while people at home are dying from illnesses they can’t afford to treat, and our civil liberties are being systematically destroyed every single day. How did this happen and why are so many people going along with this?

I suppose it’s because anyone who’s trying to pay attention is distracted by wedge issues; emotional topics that are used arbitrarily in an effort to divide and distract, such as gay marriage and abortion. They keep our country teetering back and forth on surface according to the public’s mood during election seasons, while they do whatever the hell they want to behind the scenes and push forward their corporate/military agenda. This is called a Plutocracy; the real social system that we live under. Both parties are owned by corporate/military interests and the people in power do what they want. This country is run by the oil industry. Not our elected government and certainly not our president. Our votes do nothing to affect what actually happens so this is not a democracy, and you are not free if the government has the legal authority to spy on you or arrest you without due process, hold you for as long as they see fit without access to a lawyer, torture you and even assassinate you, acting as the judge, jury and executioner.

These conditions should terrify us because of how easy it is to abuse authority. In any free society, innocent prisoners should at the very least have the ability to appeal their detention because of how often mistakes are made. What if you were somehow mistaken for a terrorist, or just labeled as one by someone who saw you as a personal threat? That possibility should not exist, because we already know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The government should fear the people and be under their control. Not the other way around. But we are moving farther away from this under Obama, who recently signed the indefinite detention act.

Obama was hand selected by the corporate elite as the “viable option for the left” (who they can control) based on the temperament of society at the time. We needed someone seemingly opposite from Bush, while his entire campaign was financed by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and other culprits of the largest corporate fraud in history, which resulted in the greatest economic disaster of our time. These are also THE SAME top contributors to Romney, and they financed Bush as well, so it’s all coming from the same place and serving the same interests. There is no real difference of any consequence between mainstream candidates.

Whenever I get into the -lesser of two evils- argument with liberals, it always comes back to what the president can’t do. I list off all of the problems we still have, and they say “well, we can’t expect the president to do everything.” Without going into the sheer hypocrisy over liberal outrage towards the Bush administration, I say, “That’s true. But he IS the commander and chief. He absolutely can bring all of our troops home tomorrow, and do a complete 180 on foreign policy, and that is just one very radical thing the president can do that would spit in the face of corporatism, with overwhelming public support.” Then they say, “well, if he did something that radical he’d get assassinated.” And I say, BINGO. You’ve just made an enlightening admission.

Yes, the president faces assassination if he does not play ball, so in that sense he IS powerless, and nobody can make it into office without getting their hands dirty and being corrupt on some level. I probably hear that argument more often than any other, to which I ask, “why would you participate in something like that? That isn’t freedom or a democracy. It’s an oppressive dictatorship disguised as a democracy, where the two corporatist parties have full control over the electoral process. So why aren’t you protesting, rather than participating in a scam, and voting for someone who HAS TO serve the military industrial complex instead of the people? You know the same things will happen either way, so why would you support that?

Maybe D stands for DEFEATIST, not democrat. If you admit that we can and should do better for ourselves, but will do the opposite at gun point, that is exactly what you are, and you should be ashamed. Arguing the lesser of two evils with a full understanding of how bad things are, means we’re just supposed to shut up and have our rights trampled by the military, food and medical industrial complexes, along with the wholesale destruction of our environment (all of which we will be discussing ahead), JUST because some stuff is being shifted around on the surface, and that’s just the way it is. This is a cowardly position.

On the other hand if you actually believe that a Romney or an Obama can do some good, I would strongly disagree, but I respect that position (at least with regard to Obama;) a lot more than I do someone who will participate in something that they know is wrong. I think many liberals DO understand what’s going on. Now it’s time for them to embrace that understanding and come to terms with it so we can rise together take our country back.

In my list of films there is a free documentary called “The Obama Deception” which provides a very thorough and non-partisan analysis of the way Obama was used by big businesses to trick the public into advancing the same agenda they had under Bush. I will leave this discussion here and now go back to Ron Paul.

FIRST A DISCLAIMER: Many of you will be dismissive of  my last reference because the filmmaker is Alex Jones, who is generally hated by the left and considered a right wing conspiracy nut-job. I’m not a fan of Alex Jones or his mindset either. But hysteria aside, there are qualities about him that would surprise you, such as the fact that he’s a big Ralph Nader supporter. He also considers JFK “our last real president,” and was more outspoken against the Bush administration than Michael Moore.  While I don’t like most of Jones’ documentaries, “The Obama Deception” was exceptionally well done, and it’s not what you would imagine. It’s a very subjective a-political look at how Obama was used by the establishment to manipulate us and keep everything the same. It’s not about hating Obama himself and I recommend it to anyone who plans to vote for him again.

Another one of my favorite documentaries is about Alex Jones and his associated “truth movement” is “IFC’s New World Order,” which takes an outsider’s look at what they’re activism is all about. What you’ll see is a very different picture than the one that’s painted by the media and, like them or not, one thing is very clear: they have a stronger anti-war movement than ANY left-wing I’m currently aware of, and they could make useful allies to those who want to see REAL changes our foreign and monetary policy. Like I said, I’m not a fan of Jones, or a part of his club, and I often disagree with his rhetoric. But if you really care about change, I would urge you to withhold your full judgment about groups like his until watching both of these films. Their materials do offer some nuggets of value.

What Democracy?:

Obama Deception:

IFC’s New World Order:

Hip Hop Legend KRS-One on Obama:

#3 – Ron Paul is not a “Republican”

Nothing drives me crazier than when liberals say they agree with RP’s foreign policy (bullshit-cough), but he’s just as crazy as all the other republicans on other issues, so we better still vote for Obama. I was a long time fan of Bill Maher (who is actually a big admirer of Paul’s, and helped boost his initial craze in mainstream), until I heard him say those exact words, citing his stances on federal regulation. Then one of his liberal guests jumped in and added that some liberals think Paul’s ideas are appealing because of his foreign policy, but they should realize that a lot of what he says comes from a “hateful” place, as he mocked him for stating that the Civil War was unnecessary. The implication was of course that Paul is a racist Southern right winger, who wouldn’t mind if we still had slavery. Instead of discussing his real position on the matter –that we should have been able to end slavery without a war, as other countries did, and that it was actually just another profit war- they changed the subject right after bringing it up; a cowardly smear from his guest and a disappointingly passive response from Maher (haven’t watched him since…).

Nothing could be more untrue than this propagated idea that Paul’s foreign policy views are the only ones that can appeal to liberals (not that they truly believe in them anyway, as it turns out). His stances on EVERYTHING from federal regulation to healthcare, education and immigration reform, are as different from those of the other “republicans” as night and day. He wants THE OPPOSITE OF TRICKLE DOWN economics.

The reason people don’t realize this is because of the language he often uses, which they only hear in sound-bites. Ron Paul is trying to transform the republican party back into what they were supposed to be once upon a time (which is wise because convincing liberals SHOULD be the easy part), and explains his positions from a conservative point of view, so a lot of the language is frightening to liberals when taken out of context.

To better understand the distinctions between Ron Paul and the establishment republicans (otherwise known as “neo-cons”), let’s begin with Bill Maher’s statement that he’s “just as crazy as the others,” because of his views on big government and more regulation; that they are actually what create the problems in our society.

When Ron Paul says the words “Big Government,” he’s actually talking about BIG BUSINESS. When he talks about the evils of “Federal Regulation,” he is referring to CORPORATE LOOPHOLES, because big business controls the federal government through lobbying, calling all of the shots on all of the bills, essentially creating the so-called regulations themselves. What the OTHER republicans mean when they talk about “big government” and “regulation,” is that they want big businesses (AKA their political sponsors) to be allowed to continue their evil practices and profit motivated abuses without interference from the federal government on behalf of the people, while they continue to work hand-in-hand with the government in order to perpetuate this system which favors them.  Ron Paul is actually talking about getting the government out of bed with the evil, giant, too-big-to-fails once and for all, so small businesses can finally have a chance to thrive in an entirely different type of economy.

Another bit of language that freaks most liberals out is the idea of “letting the market self-regulate.” Of course this sounds like what the other republicans advocate: allowing big businesses to do what they want without any legal consequences. But it actually means the exact opposite. There are very strict and key regulations under the market such as full transparency. You also can’t commit fraud or destruction of person or property. In fact it’s the involvement of the federal government in business that allows institutions to override these rules and creates the morally hazardous conditions. This is because regulations are NOT what you think they are. Basically they are entire books, with hundreds and sometimes thousands of pages of caveats and fine print that no person or business could ever interpret without a team of expensive researchers to make sure all of the rules are being adhered to.

All this does is give the largest corporations the competitive advantage, because they are the only ones who can afford such teams. Without these so-called regulations, small businesses that use ethical practices would actually have a chance in Hell to fight back and compete with places like Wal-Mart. These executives have government insiders who design the “regulations” that will cater to their interests, and then the lobbyists simply buy the votes to get the right ones passed. Now do you see why thinking that government regulation is a bad thing, isn’t always a bad thing?  A legitimate regulation would be summed up in just a few sentences or pages, for EVERYONE to adhere to, without any special privileges or loopholes to be exploited by ANYONE. Anything less should be considered fraudulent.

The libertarian theory behind the uncomfortable sounding “market regulation” argument is supposed to be that once you end the marriage between The Government and Big Business (what Ron Paul defines as “Big Government,”) everyone including the major corporations actually become ACCOUNTABLE for crimes such as FRAUD and destruction to person and property, although many libertarians get confused about this, as Paul often notes, and fall into the right-wing ideologies we despise so much: “let big business do what it wants”. When big business is controlling the government, it essentially allows them to get away with anything, with BEACAUSE of regulations. If they happen to go bankrupt because they misbehaved or gambled our money away, the government will use more of our money to bail them out, regardless of how unpopular and unconstitutional that is. Thanks regulations! Good thing we voted.

In a libertarian or “free society,” as Ron Paul defines it, corporations could not have business relationships with the government at all so there would be no such thing as lobbying. Furthermore, regulations would not allow corporations to operate without transparency. This is key because transparency is what keeps businesses honest, and forces prices of goods and services down through legitimate competition, guided by the will of the consumers.  Note that this would actually make it easier for us to get companies on the side of socially conscious, environmentally friendly, strictly organic types of objectives (which are actually effective). But we don’t have transparency, and we should be up in arms about this.

Did you know that it’s impossible to get a price or quote for any medical treatment from a hospital because of insurance regulations? They won’t tell you a thing in advance. They’ll say “come in so we give you an unnecessary exam, and if insurance won’t pay for it, we’ll bill you as much as we want to for the visit and/or treatment because there’s no way for the public to access or scrutinize our internal costs. Can you name any other service you would sign off on a purchase without access to the price? It’s CRIMINAL to operate this way.

If transparency is once again a requirement of the market system, the big nasty corporations won’t be able to get away with committing mass fraud like have been for decades, and in theory, and the Enrons of the world couldn’t even exist. The people would actually be able to hold a company liable, or put them out of business via winnable lawsuits, boycotts and demonstrations. NOT get forced to bail out that institution that harmed them. The abusive corporations would simply self destruct or be forced to shape up immediately. Interesting way to look at it, no? Corporations wouldn’t even be able to get away with polluting because that is destruction of person and property, and the government regulations wouldn’t be there to protect them from the people, who would now essentially be controlling the regulations, as they should.

While this approach is very deliberately mischaracterized as being friendly to big business, so the two main parties can keep fighting and never accomplish anything, these are the ways the market is thought to be a better regulator than the federal government.  Regulation by the market, under Ron Paul’s definition, is regulation by the people. Not regulation by big business, and we cannot expect our big business government to protect us from big business. They are for them. Not for you.

I hope you’re starting to see why Ron Paul is not even in the same category as other republicans and shouldn’t even be associated with them or their “principles.” He’s also different from other libertarians, but I will cover that later. First, I’ll get back to the main purpose of this essay, which is to demonstrate why he supports my values as a progressive, better than any other candidate.

Paul the Anti-Neocon:

#4- Ron Paul is the only one who cares about the poor.

The corporate media will make you believe that he wants to take away entitlements and that he hates welfare. This is hog wash. Ron Paul wants to eliminate the need for entitlements over a 10-20 year period of redirecting war money (and we’re talking billions here) to help our poor, our sick and our dying -not to mention all of our veterans who need care, and anyone who is dependent on the system today. What an evil right winger!

Do I have to remind progressives that there was a time when a person could support an entire family on one income? Although you’ve been conditioned not to believe it, it is absolutely possible for us to return to that, with everyone included (not just white people).

Don’t buy into the absurd myth that there just aren’t enough resources for everyone to have enough, so we have to play this game where everything is too expensive, so then we’re forced to depend on entitlements and become debt slaves and wage slaves; keeping a certain percentage of the population in extreme poverty as a functional requirement.

That’s the scam that keeps the rich at the top, and abandons the other 99%. If you think that we naturally ended up in this position through legitimate competition, and the resulting conditions are just the cost of having everyone included in our open “free market,” we have some work to do.

I should correct one statement though… Ron Paul does hate welfare, but with good reason. His point about this is that welfare is designed to keep people in poverty rather than help them out of it, and we should be addressing the root causes of poverty instead of using this phony band-aid solution that enables the structural oppression and keeps things exactly the way they are: in a state of perpetual poverty, which is actually profitable to the top 1%, but that’s for a later discussion. Ron Paul is saying that nobody in any “class” should be forced into the position of having to become dependent and thereby enslaved in the system because everything’s too damn expensive and incomes are too low. We’re being conned. The system should be set up so that people are able to take care of themselves in any income bracket, because all jobs are important to our economy. What a terrible right wing ideology, huh?

So once again, Ron Paul’s point is that everyone should be able to take care of themselves and their family, whether they are high, middle or low-income workers. He does not want to rip assistance away from anyone because they’re lazy and deservingly poor, the way some other “conservatives” do. He wants to end all of our wars and use those billions of dollars to help the needy for as long as it takes. He always refers to poor people as “victims” of the corrupt system that is tilted to favor the rich. I can provide many instances of him using that exact language, including when he called out Herman Cain during the primary debates for “blaming the victims” in his remarks about the Occupy Movement. I believe Cain said “if you’re not rich, blame yourself.” Paul immediately shot back that the “victims” can’t be blamed for the conditions created by the bubble in our perverted economy.

I’ve heard Paul say that it could take decades to get rid of the need for entitlements, so don’t believe the media nonsense. He does not want to take away anyone’s existing welfare or social security and nobody has more compassion for the poor and extremely poor in this country than Ron Paul. I will provide links to some wonderful speeches he’s given about true compassion. He wants to heal the system and phase out the need for entitlements; in other words, fix poverty (not just pretend to reduce it).

Now that I’ve clarified this point, I’ll address the million dollar question. How do we get back to the system where it was possible to have one job and take care of a family, and include everyone in that system. It’s impossible right? Just a utopian fantasy, right? Wrong… The idea that we can’t return to that is an illusion created by the owners of international banking institutions that basically control everything in our country and many others (more on that ahead).

There are two things that need to happen for use to begin moving back in the direction of a thriving society, which you will never hear Obama or Romney discuss. A fundamental change in our foreign policy from corporate imperialism to true non-interventionism, so we can effectively end all of our wars and occupations for good, will be a big part of the requirement, but none of our major systemic problems in our economic and foreign policy can be corrected until we A) CORRECT THE TAX CODE, and B) AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE.

#5 Ron Paul has the most progressive tax policy:  END THE IRS!

The first big answer to how we get back to a world without the need for entitlements, with conditions that allow a family to survive on one income, is fixing our criminally fraudulent tax code, and what I love about this point is how simple it is. Remove the income tax (hear me out) and let EVERYONE keep 90% of their income instead of around 75% or less (often as much as a 3rd is taken -and not for what you think!). That’s right… A lot of people have proposed a so-called “flat tax,” but Ron Paul is the only one who has ever actually meant it the way it sounds. Just imagine if everyone had to pay the government exactly 10% of their income, and that’s it! Everyone is automatically at least 15% wealthier.

Progressives should love this because it essentially means the rich pay more. They physically pay a larger amount because they have a higher income, so that’s a larger sum going in, and it’s fair because EVERYONE pays an equal percentage of what they earn. No special rules or loop holes to be exploited by the rich and powerful, and no more complexity. Does anyone actually understand our tax code? It’s over 3 million words long. Remember…COMPLEXITY IS FRAUD.

We do not need an income tax. Obviously that money isn’t going towards fixing schools and streets or ending poverty -just look around. More than enough can be generated to cover all necessary government costs with corporate taxes, fees, sales taxes and consumption taxes. Countries such as Iceland have done wonders for themselves implementing this model of the flat-tax system. There’s no reason we can’t do the same and there is no reason why we actually need to touch the worker’s paycheck. There’s is also no true reason why we can’t cut spending down to what it was in the 90s; when the budget was only a third of what it is today, unless you think we have to continue fighting/expanding these wars and policing the world, but I thought liberals were against militarism…

The system we have now under both parties is OPPRESSIVE TO THE POOR and favorable to the corporate elite. It forces lower income earners to pay a higher percentage of their income and it is completely unfair.

Nothing makes my blood boil more than when these rich wall street cronies has the audacity to go on TV with a straight face and make the argument that the rich already pay more in taxes, when they know damn well that they’re also paying a lower percentage of their incomes than people with regular salaries or far less. Ron Paul constantly points this out (the evil right winger that he is) and you never see it highlighted in the mainstream news. What’s been almost equally frustrating to watch are these nitwits the media selects as “Leaders of the Occupy Movement,” who don’t even know how to argue this point.

The so-called “liberal media” (who is actually much kinder to Ron Paul than right-wing media) only focuses on how he wants to “take away entitlements” -an obviously effective and completely erroneous fear tactic. They should talk about how he wants to end the wars so we can repair and heal our system to eliminate the need for entitlements all together over the next 10-20 years. Nobody say that on CNN or MSNBC, because just like Fox News, they are owned by the same multinational corporations that makes obscene profits off of our endless wars, and that is not a conspiracy theory in any sense. You just have to be willing to do the research in order to see how the power structure was designed early on through our monetary system to perpetuate these cycles of mass poverty and global conflict, TO GENERATE BILLIONS.

But I digress in the interest of staying on point… None of the money that the IRS steals from the 99% actually goes towards fixing our roads or our schools, as I think we’ve all figured out by now. Our schools and our infrastructure continue to deteriorate very rapidly. But, here’s the thing, income taxes aren’t even supposed to be used to pay for schools and roads! Schools are paid for by property taxes. Roads and bridges, gasoline taxes, and our water and sewer systems, along with airports etc., are funded by user fees. So where does this money go if its purpose isn’t to help our country? The money goes straight back the into the treasury for military spending or whatever purpose those in power see fit, which we have no control over, or participation in. This is not a conspiracy theory either. More on the corruption of the IRS as an institution ahead…

First, now that we know how to theoretically raise everyone’s income by at least 15% in a single act of tax reform, we have to make it possible and stop out of control inflation. “Inflation is theft,” according to Paul, and the only way to reverse inflation, or bring out any type of change that will reverse the terrible course we’re on, in our own country AND in the rest of the world (believe it or not), is auditing the Federal Reserve.

#6 Nobody is a bigger threat to the Big Banks, Wall Street and The FED.

You will be shocked once you learn about the history of the Federal Reserve and how it relates to our monetary system and our government. This issue is more complicated than the answer to our tax policy, and this is also where things really start to get interesting, as almost every major social problem around the world, mass suffering and depravation, can actually be tied directly back to operations of this entity known as the FED.

The problem with the FED, which has the most immediate impact on you, is out of control inflation. It’s the reason everything is priced so astronomically and why education and medical care put people into debt. It is almost entirely the reason we are stuck in our wars, and why the world economy is self-destructing. Without the FED as it currently exists, we would be able to fill our gas tanks at just one silver dime/gallon, and bring an end to most poverty in our own country and beyond. Just imagine if every citizen was allowed to keep 90% of their hard-earned incomes, as they should, and the prices of everything were dropped down to this extent. Think we’d be a little better off? Think there would still be a need for entitlements? Is there a more compassionate solution that helps more poor people? We’ll get back to that point when we reach the Healthcare discussion.

First, let’s look at what the FED is, how it’s creating these problems/conditions, and why is it so far beyond our control. Like I said it’s a long story, but the basic explanation is that the Federal Reserve isn’t federal at all. It is not even a part of our country or our country’s government (so don’t be fooled by the name), yet it’s had full control over our government, our military, our media, our educational system, the CIA, IRS and our entire monetary system for the past 100 years, operating in complete secrecy without any accountability or auditing. This is where Ron Paul is actually in favor of more regulation because that is where it’s needed: a true medical diagnosis from an experienced physician.

The FED is in fact the arm of a giant multinational corporation known as the world bank, which owns all of the world’s largest businesses; big oil, big pharma, Coca-Cola, all of the central banks, mainstream media institutions and so on. Their Federal Reserve is more powerful than the US government because of a bill that was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson: The Federal Reserve act of 1913. This is an institution with enough influence to overrule any court or legal proceeding, and it has the ability simply decide what a car will cost the average person, for instance.

The world bank is essentially an international cartel comprised of superpower governments which work together to serve corporate interests. They hold annual meetings around the world and invite all their countries most powerful and influential figures. Even though these figures control almost everything that affects us, our economy and the geopolitical direction of our country, these meetings are top secret (research Bilderberg Group). The U.S., along with some European nations such as Great Britain, France and Israel, serves as one of the puppet governments to this global financial institution, which is under the control a criminal enterprise of trillionares: The Rothschilds, Rockefellers and the Lehmans to name a few. It began with the Rothschilds: descendents of a secretive community of goldsmiths who invented a monetary system with the structure of a pyramid scheme. They figured out that by controlling the supply of money, they can control, well, pretty much everything.

Before their system took hold, nations had the ability to issue and control their own interest-free currencies, with value that was based on how much of it was in circulation. This model drove the prices of goods and services down, encouraging productivity, and wealth poured into the middle and lower classes making the economy flourish. Everyone in society was able to thrive in this system for over 700 years in Great Britain, without accumulating any type of national debt. Nations should actually never have to go into debt and national debt just is a side effect of this corruption.

The system that the “money changers” came up with was different, and they used a practice known today as “fractional reserve lending.” In this model their institution –the central bank- issues the currency to governments at interest, to loan to their people at interest, rather than just allowing nations to issue their own interest-free money to their citizens. This allows them to finance debt and control the value of money by controlling how much of it is in circulation, and get this… They can lend out money that they don’t even possess! If we all went to the bank right now to take out everything we have, they wouldn’t be able to give it to us because, guess what… They don’t even have it! That’s because they use one person’s money to make loans to another other person at interest, and the more people (and institutions) that take out loans, the more interest is funneled back to the world bank. Money essentially becomes debt, because the only way to obtain it is to borrow from this foreign institution. Is that mildly upsetting to anybody else? This is how every major bank in this country operates today.

The reason you might not know about this is because this institution also controls what goes into our text books and media. Basically we’ve been lied to our entire lives, and 90% of what we were taught about history or economics is either false or grossly inadequate.

Not only is your money being used to make loans to other people at interest, but when the government needs to borrow large sums of money, the FED can legally print as much money as they want to in order to provide a loan, without any precious metals to back the bills. The dollars are essentially valueless and literally printed out of thin air: legal counterfeiting , made possible by the Federal Reserve Act (because there is only so much we can borrow from China at interest or steal from the tax payer to expand our empire).

Since the value of our currency is based on the amount of money that’s in circulation, all of this additional fake money being pumped into the system, drives the value of the currency down, and the prices of goods and services are forced up and voila! You have inflation that increases until the entire nation is in debt to this private foreign banking institution. Let the mass foreclosures and layoffs begin.

Towards the end of his presidency Woodrow Wilson stated the following: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” – 1919.

So there you have it. Woodrow Wilson was bought. You and I were sold out. And this powerful secretive group has remained in power all of this time through the methods of bribery, assassination and false flag terrorism,  meaning they stage, finance and orchestrate terrorist attacks and bombings around the world to get public support for wars that make them billions (often financing both sides to keep it going as long as possible), and laws that give them greater power by taking away freedoms, ie: governments having the legal authority to spy on citizens without any probable cause, detain anyone they want to for as long as they want, without granting the right to an attorney or any due process, and assassinate anyone they want to privately define as a “threat.” All of these things are perfectly legal in our country (“for your own protection”), so our freedom is actually an illusion as I stated earlier. What we are is complacent and ignorant, and our society remains conditioned this way, thanks to the industries and institutions they control (namely education, media, and processed food –bare with me).

Am I suggesting that 9/11 was planned by our government? Of course not. That would imply that everyone, including the president and all members of congress are involved in a conspiracy together, and everyone on the planes faked their own deaths or something to that effect, which is obviously absurd. 9/11 truthers don’t actually believe this either, and the 9/11 Truth movement has nothing to do with the idea that “our government” was behind the attacks. That “theory” was fed to the media in order to discredit the real truth about the 9/11 attacks: that it was a classic black ops mission, financed by non-public figures behind the central banking system.

It wasn’t our country or our government that was behind it, which is why I tend not to use the term “inside job.” It came from an external source, which has control over key elements of our government, such our military, and our media, all of which were used together to cover up the truth about the attacks. Not very difficult when you have trillions of dollars at your disposal. There is nothing “unpatriotic” about getting to the bottom of this. Patriotism is a fools notion and a manipulation concept anyway. A country’s government is not its people. We would not want people to be patriots under someone like Hitler, and we are not by default better than anyone who was born in a different place. But if you want to think of patriotism as caring about your country, what could be more important than investigating this in an open public manner. It does not hurt the families of the victims to talk about this either because they are pushing for new investigations harder than anyone else.

Let me make it clear that I am not a conspiracy theorist. I’m hugely skeptical and I question everything, but I’m not a blind sheep either. I don’t know if this is the same group who killed JFK, but I’m informed enough to know that every president, from Lincoln to Kennedy, who fought against this criminal empire has been assassinated.

Here is Kennedy’s speech about secret societies that likely played a part in his death – Here is an equally important speech by Dwight Eisenhower from when he was leaving office, about the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex: Both speeches are absolutely chilling in many regards (although Eisenhower wasn’t killed).

So I guess this means JFK and Eisenhower where pretty paranoid, huh? I always find people amusing when they scoff at the thought of anything that could be called a –conspiracy- because the only argument I ever hear is “Oooooh, it’s a conspiracy. The government’s out to get me. Big brother’s watching, oooooh…” Hilarious, but I wonder if these hardcore “conspiracy deniers” have an actual argument against any specific theories they take issue with. Or is it just the word “conspiracy” that they’re so adamantly opposed to?

The term -conspiracy theorist- is a public manipulation word, FED TO US by the same corporate propagandists who’ve introduced other popular terms and phrases into the national dialogue, such as “Axis of Evil,” “Cut and Run,” “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and so on. People who get stuck on the word “conspiracy” are no less brainwashed than the masses of people who got behind those catch phrases. When people talk about 9/11 truth, they’re not taking about doctored photos of our landing on the moon. We’re talking about people getting killed right in front of our faces and our government LYING ABOUT THE FACTS. This should be a wakeup call. Not something to blow off or have an immature attitude about. This “conspiracy theory” actually concerns you and everyone in our country who’s being sent to fight and die overseas. Time to reclaim our freedom of thought.

George Carlin put it best when he joked about how “conspiracy” has been turned into a dirty word, making it sound crazy that people might “get together and plan something (gasp)!” My point is, I do not spend time investigating various conspiracy theories or dreaming up my own to explain away a truth that I can’t handle. That argument never made sense to me. Why would I want to believe the government was involved in a domestic attack on any level? It would be much easier to think that it was Osama Bin Laden and his band of cave dwelling radicals, but here is the truth, if anyone dares to research it for themselves: the attacks had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden.

Groups like Al Qaeda make handy scapegoats, because the central bankers have been using our government to bomb their houses and steal their oil for decades. So there are already many groups who hate us and want to attack our forces and embassies, which they can shift the blame to. Bin Laden himself was a CIA operative during the 90s. That’s right. He technically worked for us. Then he was on the FBI’s 10 most wanted list for acts of terrorism, but never for 9/11 because (get ready) the FBI doesn’t even have the evidence to link him to the attacks! When you do the research you will see that the “evidence” made public of his involvement was laughable at best, and there is nothing sillier or more far-fetched than the official government story. “Bin Laden’s death” was another hoax designed to keep us in Afghanistan by proving that “the War on Terror is working.” USA! USA! USA!

We won’t go any further into this territory and I’ll let my list of links provide the details.  But again, do not misinterpret me. There is no grand conspiracy that the government YOU know is a part of. These events come from behind the scenes and they are consequences of the bankers’ global monopolistic gaming strategy. This is just the way it’s been going on through a lot of our history, and there is plenty of documentation to prove this. These problems are self-perpetuating in the structure of our money-flow, and the grand majority of people working in these financial institutions are entirely unaware of what they’re really involved in. It’s not that the world is being controlled through puppet strings at the hands of an evil cult run by Dick Cheney. It’s international organized crime at the highest level.  This group happened to figure out the ultimate pyramid scheme, and created this seemingly indestructible power structure/empire that keeps so many millions at war and in poverty, while they sit at the top with close to 50% of the world’s wealth. The rest gets divided between the other 99%  – hence the Occupy Movement.

If you don’t think anyone could be this evil, than you don’t know the history. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is just one example of an admitted false flag operation, which led to the Vietnam war, killing over a million. Operation Northwoods is another good place to start ( These people do what they want because it doesn’t affect them and it makes them preposterously rich. They have trillions of dollars. Nobody with that amount of money and power can be trusted. What, do you think they’re going to be normal empathetic people with regular values? Come on…

The reason most people reject this type of information is because of their egos. They don’t want to believe that they’ve been tricked or manipulated, especially by someone they trust. They want to believe they’re smarter than the propaganda, but that’s only because they don’t have any understanding of how easy it is to manipulate the public through control of the media and other institutions. There are entire declassified government manuals for this, and straight mind control is also a lot easier than most realize. Here are a couple of mind-control demonstrations by Darren Brown that you might find interesting:

So, don’t feel stupid if you’ve been tricked, but don’t be stupid and accept what you’re told or dismiss this type of information without researching and analyzing it for yourself. Learn about alternative news media and trust me, you will never go back. This is the most important issue of our time for a number of major reasons, the first being that the collapse of our country’s government  and economy is in their financial interest and it doesn’t matter who wins the wars, because they aren’t really a part of our country.

Once a country’s government goes bankrupt and collapses, the world bank buys up all of the country’s assets at a fraction of the price, thereby enslaving the country and controlling all of its industries. This has happened countless times throughout history, and in my sources you will see government manual explaining how to bankrupt a country through war and then seize its government, resources and primary industries (as well as interviews with John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman).

When OUR currency finally fails (and we are practically there already) because it has no more value, they can then introduce their one-world currency, the Amero, to replace the dollar, and this will be the means by which they can finally establish their one-world-government and achieve global domination (in a sense) –keeping everyone underneath impoverished, and under heavy control and surveillance. That has always been the agenda and it’s been speculated that that this is why FEMA (yes, the same FEMA that did such an awesome job with Katrina) has evidently built refugee camps all over our country, to contain us if or when this happens. Sound like fun?

The other reason it’s the most important issue is that the game is finally up. 20 years ago false flag operations were easier to get away with, but they underestimated the free flow of information on the internet in 2001. Now a majority of the people in this country and around the world believe that our government was at least on some level involved in the attacks and the ensuing cover-up, because they’ve had access to nearly 10-years worth of hard evidence.

An intellectual revolution and global uprising has begun as a result of this revelation, coupled with the global depression. People are waking up faster than ever, so now they will have no choice but to escalate their war efforts, as you’ve seen happening, and secure their control over the countries with the most important resources such as oil. They will push us into World War III as quickly as possible: Asia and the Middle East vs North America, Europe and Israel. The system will do whatever it has to for self-preservation including more 9/11-style attacks and false flag operations. That is why this is so important, and so dangerous, and this is why we have to act now and take our country back.

I’ll leave it there on the issue of the FED, but hopefully what I’ve shared will inspire some further investigation (the best documentaries about this are The Money Masters, The Secret of Oz and the first two Zeitgeist films). In the long term, this really is the key to endingwars, ending poverty and ending our use of oil all together (for those environmentally minded folks –The FED is Big Oil essentially). Nothing will ever be perfect, but the idea that we can’t bring an end to these broad social deficiencies is the greatest trick the devil ever played.

Don’t let anyone tell you that we always have to fight wars because there will always be evil people. The tyrants reach their positions from doing business with us, and the only reason there would always be war, is because it is always profitable. It has never been about your protection, and we wouldn’t need to worry about people wanting to bomb us if we weren’t tangled up in this evil web. Our country was hijacked, plain and simple, and now it’s time to take back our liberty and put an end to this madness once and for all.

Money Masters:

The Secret of Oz:

Zeitgeist the Movie and Zeitgeist Addendum:


“Universal Healthcare” and “Medicare for All” are just words. How’s that going by the way? Are you enjoying your free universal healthcare under Obama? I’m sorry, you don’t even have Healthcare? I rest my case. “Obama Care” (God I’m sick of hearing that term) doesn’t bring us anywhere close to what you think of as universal healthcare, as much as I wanted it to. No matter how many different ways they babble about it, it only forces more people and businesses to buy really shitty expensive plans FROM A THRID PARTY, and you end up with around 10-12million more people who are technically insured (still close to 40 million without it) as we INCREASE military spending. Here’s a bizarrely well kept secret for you… YOU WILL NEVER HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, no matter how many consecutive times we elect a Wall Street democrat, like Obama. I repeat, it will be IMPOSSIBLE for us to have a social democracy like Sweden or Canada, until we completely reform our foreign and monetary policies.

Those countries only have the capability for such a system, because they’re non-militaristic nations, and this is because we are controlling their oil supply with our military. In order to be like them, we would have to end our dependence on oil and cut all of our military spending (that does not include defense spending). Until we do that, it just ain’t gonna happen, and as we’ve learned, we will never be able to get off the oil and change our foreign policy while those very interests are in control of our government via the FED. I would like us very much to move in the direction of a social democracy, and even though Ron Paul prefers a different approach, he has expressed that a “socialized” medical system would not be the end of the world. Back when it actually looked like we were going to get universal healthcare, I remember him saying that he’s a realist about it, and that’s what the public wants, but we should at least end the wars so we can pay for the new system.

So there’s no reason for the issue healthcare to end the discussion between liberal progressives and libertarian conservatives like Ron Paul (and prevent what could be the most powerful political coalition in ages). Furthermore, Paul’s healthcare proposals are NOTHING like what the republicans want (just what we had before), and I am now convinced that he offers an even better solution than Universal Healthcare, which is equally compassionate and far reaching.

First, by auditing the FED to reverse inflation, and correcting our tax code so everyone is AT LEAST 15% more wealthy, Health Insurance would become EASILY AFFORDABLE by just about anyone. The new transparency that insurance companies would be required to follow (since they can’t hide behind “regulations” anymore), would drive the prices of services down through open competition. Ron Paul uses technology as an example to illustrate that the quality of the products increases exponentially and they become cheaper and cheaper, which is why poor people end up with computers and cell phones. It would work exactly the same way with health insurance, and it would if the federal government wasn’t involved.

You see unlike Obama, Ron Paul wants to end the sleazy relationship between the government and big insurance corporations. After all it’s the regulations that allow them to operate without transparency, fix prices, force people into debt, and interfere with the doctor/patient relationship. Why should we be forced to see a doctor for every tiny medical need? We should be able to have about 90% of our needs covered by nurses at $10-30 a pop, instead of being FORCED by insurance companies to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to see a doctor and get a basic treatment. Do you really think those treatments cost that much to perform? We should be paying pennies compared to what they charge, but we can never know the real answer to that question, because there is no transparency, and therefore, no accountability. That is why they can literally get away with murder.

What would we liberals enjoy more than actually getting the government out of bed with big insurance and big pharma, and ending that relationship for good? We should be overjoyed at the very thought that someone in politics still believes this is possible and has made it his goal. It’s the equivalent of cutting out the middle man and taking away their power to abuse. The monetary and tax reform measures would allow charities to thrive once again and care for the most desperate individuals, so nobody is EVER denied. Additionally the open competition would create incentives for the insurance companies to offer deals and retroactive policies, meaning if an uninsured person gets injured they can sign up and receive full, or mostly full, coverage for their emergency treatment. States would also still be allowed to have state run-programs, with more socialized structures, so the burden wouldn’t fall entirely on the charities. But that doesn’t even matter, because, once again, our monetary and tax reform reduce that burden down to a fraction of what it is today. NOBODY GETS THROWN OUT ON THE STREETS. It’s amazing how many times I’ve heard him say that, and to this day people still think that Ron Paul wants to let people die if they’re uninsured. That is alarmingly ignorant.

I thought I’d save the best point for last on this subject, because it’s really amazing. Are you ready? The other part of Ron Paul’s healthcare would be a part of his tax reform. EVERY PERSON would receive annual tax credits for major medical needs. This means that a portion of your income would be withheld in case of such needs. If you run into a major health issue, it is covered by this reserve. If you DON’T use it (drum roll please), you get a FULL REFUND at the end of the year! How the hell does this not make sense to people? Of course the idea sounds crazy, because it would stop the big insurance companies from making criminally absurd amounts of money off you, and help small insurance companies enter the market and compete! But it’s perfectly reasonable to structure health care this way and it ACCOMPLISHES THE SAME THING AS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE: everyone receives care, and nobody goes into debt because they got sick.

This is the system we were supposed to have until big insurance companies took over the government. As Ron Paul stated, “For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.”

In his entire career in Medicine Ron Paul has never accepted insurance money. He always negotiated the prices directly with his patients to what they could afford. If they couldn’t afford the treatment, they didn’t’ pay for it, simple as that. Here is a testimony from one of his patients-, and here is Ron Paul commenting on the story:

Escape Fire Trailer:

#8 Ron Paul is Hip to Alternative Medicine and Organic Food

And that’s no laughing matter… There are thousands of treatments and remedies for illnesses and chronic health conditions that are proven to be far more effective than any of the dangerous products from the pharmaceutical industry, which kill thousands every year. Nutritional Therapy for example can effectively cure numerous types of cancer and deadly illnesses, but it is ILLEGAL to treat patients with these methods alone in most states. You would never be told about any of these options or methods, because doctors’ jobs are to sell you Big Pharma drugs and treatments, which lead to more complications and then require more drugs and treatments, because this is how they were taught to practice in today’s med schools. It’s about a million times more profitable to TREAT sickness than it is to cure it, which is why the pharmaceutical industry lobbies congress to keep alternative medicine illegal, and this is how the medical industrial complex works. It is also another glaring indicator of how fundamentally flawed our monetary system is.

Sickness and death are industries, and  two of the largest. American’s spend more than 2 trillion dollars per year on healthcare which creates a “positive effect”: our country’s GDP actually increases with sickness and deaths, so there is NO common interest left between companies making profits and actually trying to solve these problems. That would end type of mass profits, so the corporations use the government to avoid that. You will not see less cancer and chronic deceases. It will continue to skyrocket as it has non-coincidentally over the past several decades, because it’s making people filthy rich -not to mention that it’s easier to control a population when everyone is sick, dying and broke. How much worse does it have to get? Are we not terrified and sickened enough as it is?

Under current laws, the federal government may literally send thugs to kick down the doors of alternative medicine organizations, on behalf of Big Pharma, and outlaw their treatments, because THEY get to decide if it’s “too dangerous.” Of course it’s really just about preventing alternative medicine from taking business away from Big Pharma, which kills and addicts people by the millions, and this is why Ron Paul says people should be allowed to “practice what they want.” Alternative medicine should be allowed to develop and compete in the market without being STOPPED by the government, on behalf of big business. It’s MURDER for the government to allow this and they have no right under the constitution to stand in the way. Paul talks about this frequently during healthcare discussions, but it’s never included in media sound bites. Of course Paul is the opposite of a sound-bite politician (almost enough to win my vote by itself), and you have to listen to full discussions to really catch what he’s talking about.

On the other side of this you have the food industrial complex, which feeds and runs parallel to the medical industrial complex. Do you ever wonder where all of these mystery cancers and deceases came from over the just over last several decades, a time through which saw the end of localized food production? Ever wonder why so many kids have autism, ADHD, let alone obesity and diabetes, or where the Hell Alzheimer’s came from? Did you know that all three of those have links to processed food? Ever wonder how rich people get treating those diseases? Did you know that in our public schools we feed children the same toxic, chemical ridden, sugar-latent garbage that the feed prisoners in order to keep them lazy and stupid? Yes, bad nutrition absolutely makes you stupid, because it turns you into a junky starting at a very young age, and this is another key to keeping the rest of society exactly where it is; in a state of rapid deterioration, while the top few can experience exponential growth and perfect health.

What’s more is that the synthetic chemicals in processed foods have carcinogenic properties, addictive substances, and the FDA does not even require companies to list all of the additives that they include. This is because the FDA works on behalf of the Monsanto and other processed food giants. Like most federal departments, the FDA is not there to protect your health. That’s just what we were taught to believe. The FDA is actually trying to change the legal definition of -organic- so they can co-opt the public’s shift to natural products, in light of this information. That is why more and more people are growing their own food and starting local farms.

But the government interference doesn’t end there. They can also send SWAT teams in to raid and shut down farms that produce raw milk (or anything THEY decide is dangerous), even if there has not been a SINGAL public complaint.  Did you know that when you pasteurize milk, you sacrifice almost all of the vitamins and nutrients that fight diseases, prevent arthritis, and enhance the body’s defense mechanisms? This is what we give up to avoid a just tiny chance of getting salmonella, in exchange for added hormones, and chemicals that are linked to heart diseases, and historically, at much higher risk for poisoning or contamination.

Don’t get me wrong. I think raw milk sounds revolting and I will never become a raw milk drinker, but how in Christ is it possible that the US government has the ability trespass into my private home and stop me from drinking something that MIGHT make me sick (but will probably have the opposite effect make and make me healthier than average)? Is it not my right to chose mostly helpful bacteria with nutrients, over chemically contaminated cancer causing additives? Am I not even allowed to pick my poison, or decide for myself which one is more dangerous?

HELL NO, people. That is a cartoonishly absurd violation of our rights, which is why Ron Paul always brings up the issue of “raw milk freedom” (for anyone who was confused by it at first like I was). It’s the perfect example of how far we’ve come in our police state, on the road to tyranny. That is not freedom and Ron Paul wants to stop this insanity. No more allowing the federal government to subsidize corporate crops and farms to maintain their competitive advantage over small organic farms. Why should it be more expensive for regular people to eat if they want to be healthy and not get cancer? And no more allowing the FDA to raid your farms and local markets.

Paul is right. This has reached an insane level and it’s time to get rid of these “departments of such and such,” who are actually hired thugs and extortionists (both literally and symbolically) for the largest corporations who want to remain in total control at whatever cost. Removing this element would allow a swift return to local food production and a rapid rise in the availability of healthy, uncontaminated and unprocessed foods that people can afford. Nothing will be more crucial to our survival as a civilization, than localizing food production, because today our food supply is completely vulnerable. Thanks to globalization, nothing will accelerate a mass human die off faster than our food supply becoming threatened. This priority should be right up there at the top with monetary reform and an education overhaul.

If you wanted to take it even one step further and consider the way this system works together with the medical industry to keep you sick and stupid and dying in masses, feeding the machine with our blood and lining the pockets of billionaires, we can just be honest and call it what it is: genocide. Will genocide inspire us to start listening Ron Paul, and supporting for him regardless of what the corporate media says, or does it have to get to the point where people are getting killed in the streets? I wish this was just paranoia, but we’re already reaching that point, and once we’ve gotten there it will be far too late. Can’t say he didn’t warn us… Structural violence is still violence, and it is far more deadly.

As for what Obama will do about this… Well… He just appointed Monsanto VP Tom Visack to USDA Chief. You be the judge.

The Idiot Cycle:

Food Matters Intro:

Sickness and Death GDP:

Anonymous Monsanto:


Food Inc Trailer:

Monsanto Doc:

Michael Ruppert Speech: (Incredible Michael Ruppert speech –removed from Youtube –choppy video quality, but the MP3 plays perfectly)

#9 Libertarianism, Socialism, Capitalism and other isms

When most people, namely liberals, think of libertarians, they imagine racist, gun-toting isolationists, who don’t believe in helping others, or having a societal safety net for those in need. Those people certainly do exist and call themselves libertarians, which is why many “libertarians” actually hate Ron Paul. He frequently calls libertarians out when they’re wrong (most often when they drift too far to the right, because they misunderstand the principles). But it is only mainstream media culture that made these types of “libertarians” the primary association with the label, and libertarianism has been successfully turned into another dirty word, much the way -socialism- has on the flip side. There is a terrible amount of confusion today surrounding both of these terms, along with words like capitalism, and it’s important to understand that they usually mean different things coming from different people.

Let’s start with libertarianism, which started out as a philosophy centered around respect for the constitution and -individual liberty-, or freedom from an oppressive ruler. In a free society, the government does not have the right -under the constitution- to interfere with our private lives in any way, unless we are being destructive to another person or their property. They may never invade any citizen’s home and arrest or spy on them without due process. They may not censor us or take away our freedom of speech, under ANY circumstances, or phony national defense justifications, and they may not tax/steal money from our hard earned pay checks to use for their private business ventures, housing bubbles and imperialism.

These are not bad principles and as a liberal I am tremendously concerned about the protection of our civil liberties, which are routinely being violated and systematically destroyed via bills like the Patriot Act. Our civil liberties are supposed to make us free, as opposed to being ruled and controlled. Once we give up our freedom of speech or right to privacy, we are no longer free. This is why terrorist groups just love to have us invade their countries. They can target us directly on their own turf, while our freedoms get taken away (for security reasons) and we go bankrupt.

Fighting for civil liberties has been one of the fiercest traditions of the progressive movement since the 1960s, and it’s one of the aspects of the left that made me proud to call myself a liberal. Our message spat in the face of anyone who was stupid enough to think that ANY compromise on this matter was acceptable or “for our own good.” We use to be the best at banning together and fighting back to protect our freedoms, and we were up in arms when they were being threatened by the Bush administration. Today the exact same process continues, but I guess we’re going to let it slide and focus on ending the wars, getting healthcare to the poor and prosecuting the bankers on Wall Street who caused the depression… Wait a second… None of that’s happening either. Quite the opposite in fact… Hmmm… Something doesn’t smell right.  Oh well, at least we have a democrat in office now! Woohoo!

Maybe liberals don’t care about civil liberties anymore (only took a couple years), but another aspect about libertarianism that most are unaware of, is the fact that there are both conservative libertarians, as well as progressive libertarians, who still value these principles. Bill Maher, who is famous as a voice from the left, has used the word libertarian in describing his politics, and never used the word democrat (in fact he’s stated very clearly that he is not a democrat). Even Noam Chomsky has stated that in the most traditional/philosophical sense of the word, he too is a libertarian, noting that the term has become highly distorted over the years. He also suggests that this could only be his real-life position in a system of “perfect liberty.” Since there is no such thing, we can assume that by “perfect liberty” he meant a society that doesn’t have its monetary system controlled and manipulated by foreign banks, which ultimately have the most say in how we run our countries or use our military. Paul’s argument is that this type of free society can be achieved once we have a peaceful revolution to bring about key measures of reform.

When it comes to the word socialism you run into even more confusion. On one hand there are those who believe a social democracy like that of Sweden, Norway, or Canada; countries where the citizens pool their money to include things like healthcare in their government services, equates to militaristic, totalitarian, dictatorships such as Russia and North Korea. That is the communist model of socialism, not democratic socialism. People who think that these are the same thing, or that adopting the Canadian healthcare system will turn us into a militaristic socialist dictatorship should wake up to the fact that we are already there. But it’s a system of corporate socialism, where you and I are forced to bail out big businesses (not to save jobs, but to save bonuses), hence the term “too big to fail.” The few rich and powerful rulers have the ability to use our military against us, and for whatever business purposes THEY decide, with or without public or congressional approval. We’ve been living with socialism for a very long time. Minimum wage is socialism. The post office is socialism. Anyone who harps on that word solely with regard to healthcare needs to grow up.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that because they hold “liberal values” or believe in things like universal healthcare and public education, that they are in fact socialists, and now proudly define themselves as such. This over-simplified attitude makes me nervous because this is largely the same group of people that was manipulated into believing that the bailout was in some way related to saving jobs (exactly, how the public was manipulated into seeing a relationship between Iraq and 9/11). These people need to understand that when a giant corporation is allowed to fail, all of that business has to go somewhere, and it ends up going to the small businesses. Then the small businesses have to expand in order to take on the new business.

The demand wouldn’t just disappear with the biggest company and it’s not like if GM went bankrupt and had to close its doors, all of the workers would suddenly be on the streets. We know it doesn’t work that way. There would be somewhere to transfer to, with severances and state assistance to help through the transition. Don’t get fooled into helping these criminals in the name of “socialist causes.” They should be allowed to fail, just like everyone else who is following the rules and has everything stacked against them. Not be rewarded or allowed to maintain their competitive advantage over the market. That is the appropriate position of a progressive, and of a libertarian for that matter.

What socialism really means at its root is -controlled by the people- instead of the few at the top. A business with a “socialized” structure, for example, would have everyone of it’s employees hold an equal stalk in the company, so that as business grows, so do ALL of their incomes, instead of just those at the top of the pyramid. The employees also vote on every business decision, so the institution is in fact controlled by the workers- democratically- and THEY make all of the big decisions regarding their benefits and investments. The difference is that the CEOs don’t get to have 3 mansions, 10 Lamborghinis and a private jet. Instead, everyone in the company thrives and has each other’s back. Interestingly, Ron Paul actually cosponsored a bill in 1999 called the Employee Ownership Act that would move corporations in this direction: requiring that at least 50% of stock be owned by employees, and that they be allowed to vote on all corporate issues. So we’re not actually on different sides of the fence with this. Ron Paul shares these values and he is not the kind of libertarian you thought he was. Don’t let the corporate media throw us for a loop with these terms and control the discussion!

I would be open to trying either model; a social democracy where we pay into a public healthcare system that provides for everyone –assuming we follow a strict non-interventionist foreign policy and respect civil liberties, OR a libertarian society with strict free-market capitalism, like the one advocated by Dr. Paul. Neither of these models are even close to what we have, or what is being offered by the democrats or republicans, and we should not be scared off by the word capitalism either.

What we have today is NOT free market capitalism, but corporate socialism, which Ron Paul refers to as “corporatism.” BOTH parties in the political establishment are simply fighting for slightly different versions of this, and they will both favor the top corporations over the citizens, which is why the choice between Romney and Obama is so inconsequential and everything they argue about is pointless as far as we’re concerned. I don’t agree with those who are religiously devoted to capitalism either. There is no such thing as a perfect free market, and the “invisible hand” can’t magically ensure fairness. But with a reformed monetary system and tax-code, combined with non-interventionism, capitalism would be structured in a way that supports society as a whole –not big businesses. As a progressive I want whatever system does this, regardless of its labels or surface associations.

#10 Ron Paul is NOT the TEA PARTY and neither is… The Tea Party

Ron Paul is not affiliated with the Tea Party. That’s a media trick. He speaks to them and tries to educate them, but he is not a part of the Tea Party organization or “The Tea Party Candidate,” as they CONSTANTLY refer to him on all of the news channels. But the Tea Party isn’t what you think it is either. I’ve never been a fan of the Tea Party, mostly because sensationalist use of the word socialism that I frequently hear from their leaders, which always makes it harder for me to take people seriously. But I’d be willing to bet that you didn’t know there are also democratic members of the Tea Party, or that the proposed Tea Party budget for 2012 was actually Bill Clinton’s last budget plan, or that none of the leaders are against social safety nets, as one of them made clear on an NPR interview (which I haven’ been able to locate unfortunately).

As Ralph Nader has pointed out on numerous occasions, the Tea Party began as a movement for supporting the constitution and protecting civil liberties. The “authentic Tea Partiers,” as Nader refers to them, hated the bush administration as much as we did, and are adamantly against domestic spying, central banking, wars of aggression and the fraudulent tax code, so it would make sense for them to be attracted to Paul. Nader has made the case that this group would make useful allies to the anti-war left, but that possibility has been largely derailed as the Tea Party became co-opted by the establishment. In other words their momentum was recognized, so the people in power made it their own and used the media to transform it as they saw to favor their own agenda. The movement became infiltrated by those who are more fixated on gun rights, anti-immigration, and some who are just plain racist and anti-Obama. Of course the media focused only on them.

Once this image was set, the political establishment could use the Tea Party label as a way to undermine people like Paul. This basically worked, except that the movement continued to grow on a grass roots level, and then some pro-war republicans tried to get smart and align themselves with the Tea Party, such as Sarah Palin. Of course it’s laughable to think that Palin shares even one of the original values of the Tea Party, and Ron Paul has repeatedly called out those Tea Party members who think they can “oppose big government at home, but support it overseas.” He has commented that some of the tea party has fallen into the more mainstream right-wing category, and he was also booed at the Tea Party Debates in 2011 when he talked about why they hate us in the middle east: this annoying little truth that we’ve bombing people for decades and stealing their oil.

Ron Paul is not the Tea party and neither is the Tea Party, so we should ignore any of those associations and not allow the media to manipulate our thoughts. I remember chatting with a couple of young women at a bar one evening, with whom I shared some strong liberal values, but I went on a bit of a tangent (believe it or not) about why the party system doesn’t matter. When I brought up the issue of civil liberties, one said, “Oh great… You’re not a Tea Bagger, are you?” I said, no, definitely not, but then I tried to explain that the Tea Party wasn’t exactly what we’ve been told it is, and we shouldn’t become fixated on arbitrary, media contrived labels, but her eyes had already glazed over by that point.

The establishment had had done its work on her and she couldn’t comprehend anything that wasn’t just comically negative about the Tea Party. Her entire point of view and political philosophy was based purely on MSNBC sarcasm and The Daily Show with John Stewart. Don’t get me wrong, I love John Stewart, and I know how much fun it is to make fun of “Tea Baggers” and the lunatics of the far right. But the Tea Party is a perfect example of media distortion and public manipulation; proof that we cannot allow mainstream media culture to act as our primary vessel of information or influence.

This limited mentality is shared by so many liberals who don’t even understand the REAL reasons to fear and despise people like Cheney, Bush or Romney. It usually has little to do with the hilarious on Comedy Central digs and wise cracks on MSNBC. There are real reasons why these figures are so dangerous, and we have to look beyond television to fully understand the magnitude of the threats they pose to our entire civilization, and I dare someone to try and call that an exaggeration.

Paul Nader Kucinich Alliance/Occupy:

Nader on Paul:

Progressive Libertarian Alliance:

Nader on Tea Party:

Nader’s Grand Alliance:

#11 ALL OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA LIE – Yes, even the ones you like…

All of the mainstream News Organizations (including the 5 major networks), liberal and conservative, are owned by the central bank. They serve the same fundamental interests, MARKETING THEMSELVES as “Left” or “Right”, while DEFINING LEFT and RIGHT, treating us as consumers, just like they do with everything else. Then THEY decide who the presidential candidates will be, as the largest corporations and financial institutions get behind them, and THOSE candidates receive all of the media attention, shaping the public perception of who is “electable.”

The entire system is rigged by the establishment. No, it’s not a conspiracy that every anchor and media representative is a part of, but we know goddamn well that every single one of those puppets is controlled, and it wouldn’t be on their interests to risk their giant salaries, commit career suicide or worse. Most of us are PERFECTLY aware of this, even while continuing to participate as if we have some real choice or say in the matter.  The people in power do what they want and the president has no legal obligation to fulfill a single promise. We’re just supposed to trust them because their smarter.

That’s the real message behind all of these networks which owned and operated by the Central Bank which profits from our fraudulent systems and illegal wars. How much more clear of a connection do you need to see that ANYONE who publicly speaks out against the Federal Reserve or the monetary system, with any amount of reach, will be character assassinated by every major network. You will NEVER hear any real discussions about The FED on monetary policy on Prime Time, which is pretty revealing since there is NO issue more important or directly related to your pathetic life (just kidding). Time to wake up.

You should not take anything you hear from corporate news organizations seriously, but I’m not just saying that to sound aggressive and angry. For years I was an MSNBC and NPR junky. There was little I enjoyed more than watching Keith Olbermann make fun of Bush, and it seemed like there was no way they weren’t superior to right-wing news when it came to the truth. But as I began to follow independent/alternative news media (that is -not owned or controlled by institutions tied to the central bank), I became gradually less interested in their programming, and then increasingly annoyed until I could no longer stomach them.

I remember my last straw with mainstream news (and the Obama administration). The hottest thing in the news was the budget deal between President Obama and House Republicans led by John Boehner. They were calling it “The Big Showdown” (Yeah… The big showdown that MEANS NOTHING TO ANY PERSON.), while at the same time the U.S. was preparing to invade Libya, and NOBODY I TALKED TO KNEW EVEN ABOUT IT!! To make things worse, we had just done another George W. Bush style SURGE in Afghanistan (which also didn’t seem to piss anybody off -boggling my mind) and military spending was taken COMPLETELY off the table in the negotiations for this so-called “Budget Deal.” So at the end of the day all we had was weeks of posturing from the Obama administration and house republicans, WHILE ALL THIS OTHER SHIT WAS GOING DOWN.

It served as nothing more than an arbitrary distraction, but it was SOLD to the public as Obama and Boehner reaching a “compromise” just in the nick of time to avoid a “government shut down,” (give me a break) allowing both sides to claim victory and argue that the other interfered. This is how political discourse becomes abstract and meaningless, and I recall how frustrated I finally became, having to go digging for actual news and current events that mattered to me, and would matter to the rest of us if the mainstream media wasn’t corrupt and did its job.

What you have to realize is that Ron Paul is an honest threat to the world’s most powerful interests, which the mainstream media serves to protect at virtually any cost. I know what you’re going to ask… “If he’s such a threat why don’t they just kill him?” Because that would be way too obvious, thanks the most powerful weapon we has at our disposal: the internet. Paul’s message caught like wildfire and spread too quickly. Nobody else in politics has ever accomplished this before, and trying to kill him would make an instant martyr at a time when social unrest is already getting out of control. It’s just not worth the risk. The only real option in character assassination.

Most of the information on TV news is designed to market, frighten, mislead, market distract, distort and market… Did I mention marketing? Most of the “news” is inconsequential and really only exists today for advertising and entertainment. Once you become aware off all of the real events happening in our country and around the world, which are both terrifying and fascinating, it’s impossible to go back to CNN, without being distractingly aware of the circus show that it is, and becoming too bored and irritated within a few short minutes to continue.

The Media’s self-preserving efforts to manipulate public perception have never been more hilariously transparent than with the character assassination of Ron Paul, and nobody did a better job of illustrating this point than Jon Stewart, who has always respected and taken a special interest in Paul because of his principles and integrity. Paul has also verbally praised Stewart on numerous occasions for his honesty and saying that he respects him.

Here are two clips where Stewart analyzes the Media’s treatment of Paul:,

Here are a couple others that include additional points of view on this glaring example of media bias, and what it means:

#12 Ron Paul is the most GREEN candidate –

Here is another important area where people have been dangerously and tragically misled. It has been the goal of the political establishment to discredit Ron Paul’s environmental stances through organizations such as the League of Conservation Voters and Republicans for Environmental Protection, who rate lawmakers’ voting records according to what THEY consider environmentally responsible: bureaucratic/legislative solutions. Paul is not surprisingly rated the lowest by these groups.

In a similar manner to how they characterized his views on issues such as welfare, Paul’s positions on environmental protection have been distorted and used to alienate him, making him appear radical or heartless, when he’s actually just being logical. It breaks my heart that so many have been convinced that Ron Paul doesn’t care about the earth or believe in global warming, or that he wants to take away our national forests so they can be developed and polluted by private businesses.

Once again all of these perceptions are completely backwards and false, but it’s been easy to mislead the public, because it’s another case of someone offering alternative approaches that address root causes, as opposed to the popular approaches condoned by big business and the political establishment (not sure why I still list those separately), which actually do nothing at all aside from helping big businesses dominate the market. Paul’s ideas APPEAR to run counter to green values, because they are unconventional and deliberately avoided and mischaracterized, but what he is offering is actually most effective approach.

Ron Paul understands that the most important and effective way to protect the environment is to restore and protect individual liberties and property rights. I know that sounds odd, but its something we’ve done an absolutely terrible job of for about the last 150 years, and this is the main reason there’s so much environmental destruction today. This argument usually makes environmentalists and conservationists uncomfortable because they’re use to big polluters and developers, who interpret “property rights” as being allowed to practice business however they want to without regulatory interference. Ron Paul pointed out very explicitly on Jay Leno that “this is where a lot of libertarians slip up,” explaining that property rights are actually supposed to protect the environment; if an energy company is polluting the environment, poisoning our air and water, causing acid rain etc, they are being destructive to individuals and private property. If a person’s body is effected by pollution, his/her rights as an individual are being violated.

We are free as individuals to not be harmed or poisoned. People can harm and poison themselves all they want, but if their pollutants are having ANY kind of effect on other people or their properties, they should be able to do what they use to: file for an injunction in court and have it stopped immediately. This was how it worked before the 1850’s when the government adopted a new practice of allowing companies to violate property rights for whatever they wanted to collaboratively define as “the public good,” ie: manufacturing and economic growth.

When this practice began, it became virtually impossible for farmers or property owners to fight against big businesses that were abusing their rights and destroying their land. The courts began ignoring complaints because they were on the side of the corporations who would do as they pleased with full control over the definition of -the public good-. Today they can even position their argument from an environmental stand point, literally stealing land from people WITHOUT paying them a dime, because it’s supposedly a wetland, or home to an endangered species and needs to be protected.

This shouldn’t be an issue because, under the constitution, if a privately owned land has to be seized by the government for the protection of natural resources or any other public good, that property falls under the category of eminent domain, and the state must pay the property owner its full market value. But as usual, federal regulations paved the way for institutions to trample all over this rule and do as they please. More importantly, even if the government was forced to pay for the land it steals, it has never been about the stated purpose of protecting public lands and so on.

Case in point, while I am very passionate about protecting endangered species (coming from a family of the most fierce conservationists you will ever meet), the Endangered Species Act itself was nothing more than a crony capitalist bill created under Nixon, for the purpose of controlling land for BUSINESS. If you research the bill, you will find a number of species included that are not even endangered, because these types of regulations have nothing to do with endangered spices, wetlands or otherwise. They are strictly about government owning land, not to protect, but to lease it out to large corporations for timber production, mineral extraction, grazing, FRACKING, or whatever is most profitable, once again rigging the system for big businesses to maintain their competitive advantage over small businesses, and not having to a single penalty for their pollution or destruction of the land.

That is the fundamental problem with government owing land, which brings us to the issue of national forests. There are certainly a few national forests that are well preserved, but they’re nothing compared to the hundreds of miles of restricted forest land, which only big businesses are allowed to access for their own wasteful and destructive purposes, along with military and atomic bases and testing sites, subsidized corporate crops such as corn and wheat, destruction of lands for federal highways and so on.

If national forests and lands where owned by private parties and institutions, they would have a PRICE INCENTIVE to respect property rights and it would be in their economic interest to preserve and protect the land for as long as possible. When citizens can once again have the protection of their property rights and individual freedoms enforced, it will not be financially sound for businesses to abuse them, as they will no longer be protected by the corporate-federal regulations. Then the problem will go away and this is how the pricing system in free market is supposed to operate. It’s designed to phase out its own deficiencies over time, but the federal government has interfered and taken this ability away by removing the market entirely.

Why is it that there are still so many plastic products and materials such as Styrofoam when it would be so easy to manufacture bio-degradable alternatives? Because the government nationalized the waste disposal industry and it doesn’t cost anything to pollute! If the industry were privatized, a person would buy a piece of land to enter the business and create a landfill, l and then they would have a vested interest in protecting that piece of land forever. That means all of the garbage brought to the landfill would have to be environmentally friendly, and the landfill owner would have to charge a hefty fee for the inclusion of materials such as plastic and Styrofoam.

It would now really cost something to pollute, and the cost would then circle around back to consumers as they would start being charged to use paper over plastic, as it will now cost something to dispose of it. Naturally the consumers would choose the alternative, and the market for plastic bags would disappear. Gradually our stores would begin to fill up with environmentally friendly products instead. The federal government prevents this from happening, buy taking away the ability to have a market and a pricing system that allows the consumers to control the markets with their purchasing habits.

The government also bears some responsibility when it comes to oil spills, because when they occur in -public waters- the only fee they are required to pay is the value of the ship itself and the cargo, but not all of the terrible destruction that it creates in the territory. Does anyone else see something wrong with this? Don’t we agree that they should have to pay more? If it occurred in private waters, the penalties would be far more severe, and they would be directly responsible to the people of that land.

Furthermore, oil ships have preventative measures they can take, such as adding an outer haul (or layer) around their tanks. If one layer gets pierced, alarms sound, and the hole gets patched before an oil spill can ever occur. But this is very expensive, so the price of an oil spill doesn’t outweigh the price of adding a second haul. If someone like Exxon had to pay for their actual damage, they would have an unquestionable economic incentive to do the right thing and avoid this situation in the first place. As long as there are conditions that create incentives to do the wrong thing, the wrong things will always continue, and that applies to everything.

These are the reasons that Ron Paul does not believe in centralized bureaucratic federal solutions. THEY DESTROY THE ENVIRONEMENT and are plagued with waste and corruption. They also fail to factor in regionally specific conditions or micro-climates, which might be better served by the policies of that particular land. Ron Paul believes in local decision making because the people of a specific region are the ones who have the best understanding of their resources and have the most at stake in how those resources are managed, as they directly affect their lives. The federal government should get out of the business of environmental policy, allow states to democratically decide their own regulations and go back to simply protecting property rights and individual liberties because THAT is what prevents the most actual destruction. Is this starting to make sense yet?

We really could reverse the rampant destruction of the earth this way. Businesses could actually benefit from adopting improved eco-friendly practices. Some states would do better than others of course, but the most successful would lead by example, and progress would finally occur in the sprawling manner that it’s supposed to occur in. When states are allowed the freedom to control their own policies, the people have more power, because it’s far easier to change bad regulations at the state level. This also gives the people more power through the ability to “vote with their feet.” If one state’s not getting it right, I can move to another state that is, and I know that state will be different because it’s going to have its own independent policies that could better match my values. This would put more pressure on states to evolve and improve with the people so they continue to live there and help their economy.

Federal regulations PREVENT this, OK? That’s not just a libertarian fetish. The government (because of it corporate ties) is proven ineffective on this as we saw with ethanol, when it they subsidized corn farming at our expense to promote the use of bio-fuels, only to find out it’s completely inefficient. The result was an increase in the price of food and the crowding out of real alternative energy. Hemp would actually provide the most efficient ethanol, but thanks to the federal government, hemp production is illegal so there’s been no progress on that front. But there are so many alternative energy options we should be exploiting today, and OBVIOUSLY the government is not intent on helping us do that.

Why do people have to be convinced of this? Electric cars have been possible for nearly 4 decades, and we got to the moon within 10 years of stating that objective. Are you going to tell me we can’t have electric cars? The government has failed miserably in this category and we would be living in a very different world today if alternative energy was truly a part of corporate/political agenda in this country.

So how about this for an idea… How about we END subsidies for oil companies and NEVER AGAIN go to war to protect oil-related interests. That is what Ron Paul advocates to save the environment, because it would result in the price of oil rising to what it’s supposed to be, creating MARKET INCENTIVES for alternative energy sources. Let the oil and dirty energy markets self destruct and allow us to finally evolve and make progress in these areas that have been hindered for so long by corporate/political institutions. Stop believing that government will help us with this. And don’t be afraid or put off by the idea of looking to the market for better solutions, dirty as that sounds.

Numerous conservation and wildlife organizations such as Duck’s Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy have done so, purchasing hundreds and thousands of acres of wetlands and wilderness, through voluntary contributions, to preserve important habitats and protect their ecosystems; as opposed to letting the government own it and lease it out to destructive companies only concerned about their bottom lines. In one of these instances, oil was discovered on the lands purchased by the Audubon Society. It technically would have been within their rights not to allow the extraction of the oil on their private property, but instead they actually allowed it, participating to make sure the wildlife wasn’t affected, and then they used the money from the oil company to buy thousands of additional acres to protect for future generations and the health of the planet.

Another major issue that’s become is global warming, which Ron Paul DOES believe is real. He has NEVER stated otherwise, although he has been vocal about how it has been used as a globalist scheme. It’s not a question of whether climate change is real or fake, or dangerous, at this point. It is a question of how much we contribute and what we needs to be done. There are credible voices on every side of this discussion. Environmentalists generally get angry when they hear this, but only because of how “green movements” are been co-opted and derailed by all of the usual interests. I use to react angrily to opposing arguments about this too, until I realized that many of those who argue that we’re not the top contributors, are not against taking action and do not argue against the fact we are destroying the planet.

I’ve heard many climate change “skeptics” state that the way we’ve used our natural resources is a disaster, and that there are many reasons to stop using oil. Peak Oil, for example, shows us that we’ve used up over half of the world’s petroleum. Once extraction has reached the maximum rate, production will terminally decline. Eventually the price of oil will spike too high for anyone to afford, triggering a rapid collapse of industrial civilization as we know it. This is a very important reason to address oil use regardless of global warming, but I’m sure those two things will work together nicely.

It’s unfortunate that corporate scientists and PR firms distort these varying perspectives to lump everyone together with those who do not care about the environment. What a fabulous job of shutting down the discussion and making people not want to listen to each other. But what is far damning is that the issue of global warming itself has been co-opted by big business. It’s a way to make obscene profits and advance globalism through the use of carbon taxes etc. This results in added confusion around the already complicated issue and encourages the idea that the Global Warming isn’t even real and doesn’t warrant serious discussion and research.

Personally I don’t know if how much people contribute to climate change, and frankly I don’t care. That isn’t the point. We have to stop using oil either way. As far as the reality is concerned, I’ve heard arguments against it such as the ice age theory. But there is a frightening inconsistency in weather patterns since the industrial revolution, so whether global warming began with us or not, I personally believe we are contributing, and rising sea-levels are an absolutely terrifying reality. Personally I’d rather err on the side of caution, and do what we can to address the issue.

Ron Paul agreed on Bill Maher’s Real Time, that we are definitely contributors to Global Warming, but then again so are volcanoes, which we can’t do anything about.  Then he added that we should still do what we can to reduce emissions. He repeats this point on his official website, where he offers more details about his stance on the issue and acknowledges both the evidence and the validity of the concerns about Global Warming. The goal is to reduce our emissions, and the answer to that lies not in the centralized power of a federal/corporate bureaucracy, but in a properly managed free market system, as counter-intuitive as that might sounds.

Yes there are those, namely on the right, who hate environmentalism because they don’t believe it’s important and it just gets in the way of profits, or worse, because they don’t believe environmentalism is a part of God’s plan, because come rapture time, the earth’s conditions will no longer matter. Ron Paul is the farthest thing from this, and do not make the mistake of thinking that anyone who has a differing view about global warming is one of these people. If someone presents a free market solution to our major environmental issues that actually works, is does not translate into a win for the anti-green right.

And so what? Why should it matter to us if the right solution comes from the market as opposed to the government? What difference does that make? Shouldn’t our concern just be about the environment? Who cares about all of the ideological associations of these distorted terms and entities, and who actually gives a damn which side has more of the blame at this point? We’re talking about monetary reform. It would allow the market to function properly, without all of the corruption that causes these problems. Why waste time fighting over things like the market vs the government, if there are alternate means of achieving our objectives? This is a good place to start my next chapter…

#13 Barack Obama is not your ex boyfriend! GET OVER IT!

So what if he’s not who we thought he was?  There are two types of reactions I generally get when I talk to other liberals about Ron Paul. Some are open minded. They say “wow, that’s pretty interesting. I never thought of it that way. I’m not sure about it, but send me some links and I’ll check out his stuff.” More often than not, these folks become very enthusiastic followers, if not fully decided supporters.

Then there are the partisan liberals who can’t get past the fact that Ron Paul is running on the republican ticket. Here is where the manipulation becomes glaringly obvious and people demonstrate a religious devotion to this limited, controlled, false-duality mindset: if you’re not one thing you must be the other thing, because there are no other options. No matter what information I share with people like this, they will find some way to dismiss or rebuke the point. To their credit they will research my points, but only to cherry pick facts and adjust the context of what I’m trying to present, because A) they are emotionally attached to Obama, and B) they feel like they are losing some kind of argument to the other side if they admit he’s a disappointment, let alone a failure.

It comes back to pride. They don’t want to admit that they were fooled, but that is NOT the same as being wrong, and it sure as Hell doesn’t mean that McCain supporters where right about something. Give me a break! Ron Paul, Ralph Nader and Denis Kucinich were right though. They were the ones who warned us that we would just be getting more of the same. But no matter how I present this, there is nothing you can say to changes some people’s minds because they’ve decided ahead of time to disagree with every point.

Their argument against what I’m saying now would be that I’m not going to let them change my mind either, but this is entirely false. I’d love to be wrong about Obama, the FED, 9/11 and other subjects, and welcome any information that could change my mind. I was also a huge and very vocal Obama supporter when he was elected, and I stupidly sent him lots of my hard earned money. Even after I knew that I was a Ron Paul fan, it took a long time to convince me to focus my energy on his messages instead and become a full supporter. It was a gradual process, and I remember one of the turning points.

I was working as movie extra and met a very nice young “conservative” couple who were free market capitalists and avid Ron Paul supporters, which gave us something to chat about while we sat in the holding room for hours. It was a wonderful discussion. They were incredibly friendly and down to earth and as we got into the issues I realized that while we were coming from different philosophical backgrounds, we shared all of the same values. We talked about giant corporations using the government to ruin our food and stomp out anything natural, organic and non-toxic, along with alternative medicine. We also talked about medical marijuana, pollution, and how our monetary system is wiping up the middle class, dumping all of the expenses on the poor, and funneling all of the wealth back to the super rich… Wait a second… Who the heck was I talking to? These were NOT “republicans.” I was talking to a couple of damn hippies! Sure had me fooled with their clean cut looks and sparkling white teeth…

It became clear after conversations like those that the value system of the Ron Paul “Love Revolution” fell the right in line with my core values as a progressive, even in areas where I wouldn’t expect. The only difference is probably that I’d be happy to try a social democracy, assuming we can fix our foreign policy and our monetary system, but I’d also be open to any other model that would offer the same results -befits to the poor along with benefits the environment, and conditions that advance social progress. I began to realize that the specific ideas and proposals behind his movement were worth a close look and I began paying closer attention to alternative news and information sources.

Eventually it just became clear that because of issues like the FED, mainstream politicians are powerless, regardless of which party they belong to. They serve as puppets to the big banks and Wall Street. Nothing was actually changing, other than the language in a highly manipulated and contrived national discussion. The only leaders who wouldn’t become this way were the candidates who never accepted money from any of these institutions or made deals that compromised their values. These were the fridge candidates (the Pauls and Naders), ironically made to look crazy and radical by the establishment, when they are the true revolutionary leaders and philosophers of our time. The rest are something in between an actor and a salesperson. Nothing more.

It’s time to accept this, re-think the way re approach our lives, and MOVE FORWARD. I know it’s as hard as getting over an ex, but it’s as necessary as getting over yourself to reach the acceptance stage. Seriously, how many more people have to die before you snap out of this childish bitter amount of denial, and see that things are exactly the way they were under Bush? This is not healthy.  Obama is a Wall Street Democrat. Normally I’d say that just makes him a moderate republican, to put it in perspective, but his militaristic qualities make him a fascist neocon. If he’s a good person being forced into these measures at gun point, then it is even more important to let go and reject the entire system for good.

#14 Ron Paul is not anti-immigration and he is NOT an isolationist!

Accusing people like Ron Paul of isolationism because of his non-interventionist philosophies is probably the most desperate act of public war mongering I’ve ever seen. It’s exactly the same as when people were arguing that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam was slaughtering his people. We couldn’t just let that happen, right? Those of us who were well informed knew then that we allow genocide to happen ALL THE TIME in places like Africa and the middle east, and our invasions have zilch to do with our humanitarian objectives, despite the honorable intentions of many troops. Our government just uses that excuse when the powers that be want our military to occupy a region of oil, which always leads to increased sectarian violence and terrorism. The united states is not in the business of stopping genocide. We are in the business of entangling alliances for our own geopolitical gain. That’s the reason he’s a non-interventionist, and even more, a true pacifist. Not an isolationist…

Isolationists don’t want to allow immigration, travel or trade between countries. Ron Paul wants to trade with countries like CUBA, one of our enemies, “become friends” and allow travel and immigration. Does this sound like someone who wants isolation?

Ron Paul has been painted as a stereotypical anti-immigration southerner because he wants to fix the MESS of illegal immigration which has been going on for decades. But almost every time I’ve heard him discuss the issue, he’s made it very clear that this is not about rounding up thousands of people with expired Visas (or building some stupid fence), and we couldn’t do that even if we wanted to. Those who are committing other crimes should obviously go, but any who have just been trying to make a living should be able to get a worker’s permit, and earn the right to become a citizen.

This is another point that he stresses regarding the issue: he wants us to have a “MORE GENEROUS IMMIGRATION POLICY,” as he stated in a 20/20 interview. The problem with illegal immigration is that it creates incentives to under pay people, and then we’re forced to compete with people who will essentially work for pennies. If the legality issue can be resolved, everyone gets equal pay and that incentive disappears. I know the words “stopping illegal immigration” sound aggressive and right wing, but this helps IMMIGRANTS, and it is about protecting their rights too. Stopping illegal immigration would allow the more generous immigration policy and make it easier to become a citizen. He is also consistently adamant that our drug war is a major contributor to the conditions in Mexico, which make people desperate enough to get here by any means necessary.

I wish his website did a better job of illustrating these points on immigration. Unfortunately it only outlines the ending of illegal immigration, and that’s thrown people off a little, attracting some of the more hateful ignorant types. But if you listen to him speak at length about immigration you will hear an entirely different tone, and he knows that we have plenty of room in our country for anyone who wants to immigrate here legally from anywhere in the world, just as most of our ancestors did. Don’t let anyone try to tell you this man is a biggot, because he is the farthest thing from it.

#15 Ron Paul is NOT A RACIST. He would do MORE for people of color than Obama

Whenever someone takes on the corporate/political establishment they can expect to be character assassinated. The easiest way is to label that person a terrorist, a racist, an anti-Semite if they take issue with Israeli government, and so on. Ron Paul is usually accused of the later two, although he’s no stranger to being called a -terrorist sympathizer-. I don’t like the Israeli government, and I don’t like my own government either, so I guess that makes me an unpatriotic anti-Semite, since people are their governments and all. Please…

Ron Paul has been fighting against the military industrial complex since the 1960s, and there have been endless efforts to sabotage his career in this way. The most widely known instance of this was when someone in his staff included a racially suggestive comment in one of his newsletters several decades ago. Yet in all of this time, none of the allegations that he was aware of the article have ever stuck, because they were 100% untrue. Paul was not the author of the articles in the numerous news letters published under his name during campaigns, and he certainly has never had time to read all of them. It was bad management on his part, which he has admitted and accepted responsibility for, while denouncing the language entirely. In all of the decades that he’s served in congress he has never even uttered such remarks, but if anyone still wants more clarity on the subject you can read the details on his official site:, or listen to him respond to the allegations directly in numerous web interviews.

The other favorite way to mischaracterize him in this regard is citing his highly controversial opposition to a bill celebrating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Of course this sounds horrifying to people like me on the surface, but those who use this attack rarely look into his actual reasoning, which is that the Civil Rights Act was basically the government cleaning up its own mess of hatred, violence and discrimination, and then bragging about it, as if they had something to do with the progress we’ve seen, or have helped to create racial harmony.

We don’t have to go into how the united states government used poor rural blacks as guinea pigs in STD experiments, where the subjects would UNKNOWINGLY contract diseases, so we could study the effects of what would happen when they went UNTREATED, but that’s something that went on all the way up until 1970s. The patients were promised free healthcare to participate in medical studies, without any knowledge of the diseases they were contracting (research the Tuskegee Experiments). But aside from that, most seem to forget that segregation actually CAME FROM the government in the form of Jim Crow LAWS, and integration first occurred independently, as we saw in sports for example.

He points out how federal government exploits the Civil Rights Acts to control private businesses, forcing them to adhere to racial standards and quotas. While that doesn’t sound ill-intentioned, it ultimately opens the door to further infringement, creates more racial strife and interferes with the progress that would occur allowing businesses to succeed and fail based on doing things the right or wrong ways.

If a business is discriminating against its employees or customers you can bet that business is going to fall apart very fast, ASSUMING the government isn’t helping that business or interfering in any way. The real way to promote racial harmony in Paul’s view would have been to repeal all racist segregation LAWS and use the government to protect civil liberties. These are the actions that most effectively support change; along with the nonaggression and peaceful protest methods of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, as Paul points out. He would like the Civil Rights Act exist under this pretense. Protect freedom. Let the people bring change.

Protecting individual freedom and property rights, allows this to happen, even while it also allows people to be indecent or racist. It brings people together rather than dividing them in the long run, because it allows us the freedom to lead by example in our society, and influence change by exercising the right to speak out and boycott.

Paul tried explaining this once to Lawrence O’Donnell once on his program (following a furry of baseless attacks that made him sound flustered and defensive), to which he responded with a blank stare, followed by the usual anchor mechanism: something like, “Congressman Paul, I admire your foreign policy, but I think you could be a little more clear about civil rights.” That’s not an exact quote but if you watch the interview, it’s practically verbatim as he ends the interview, but not before Paul remarks that “real progressives understand [him]” even if he doesn’t (Nice one, Ron. That interview marked the end of my love affair with the mainstream media).

The third prong in the Ron Paul race card if you will, is the fact that he doesn’t believe that the Civil War was necessary. But as I previously mentioned, his point is that we could have been like other countries and ended slavery without war, and the war itself was about business and politics. Not ending slavery…

What is far more important than the attacks against Paul on this issue is the fact that he is the only somewhat candidate who wants to take real steps to reduce STRUCTURAL RACISM and inequality. Being the strongest protector of civil liberties makes him the strongest opponent of inequality, and I haven’t heard ANYONE speak more passionately about the inequalities under the judicial system and the drug war, noting that they lead to the imprisonment and execution of an absolutely appalling disproportionate number of blacks.

Paul wants to release all non-violent drug offenders from prison so they can go home to their families, and create the conditions that would allow them to get out of poverty. He wants to break the endless cycle of violence and crime that has plagued people of color for too long. He wants the economy to be on side of poor people, the majority of whom are not white, so that their no-longer stuck choosing between dealing drugs and fighting in wars.  That is the kind of racial progress I think we would all like to see in our country.

#16 The REAL Reasons to END THE WAR ON DRUGS

Just to drive the point home on race and show how far Ron Paul exceeds Obama in promoting equality, I will address another issue Paul is famously outspoken on: ENDING THE WAR ON DRUGS. I don’t have to convince you that the war on drugs has been a failure, worsening drug abuse, helping criminals, costing us billions and causing more damage than alcohol prohibition in 1920s and 30s. Paul claims that prohibition created the Al Capons by creating a black market, and today it’s the cartels, who ironically want the drug war to continue as much as the Christian conservatives who support it.

This issue has nothing to do with wanting the freedom to abuse drugs like marijuana, and it’s obvious why a conservative with ANY amount of fiscal integrity would adamantly oppose such policies. Obviously nobody is stronger than Paul on the fiscal side, but that’s only one part of his argument. What he also emphasizes frequently is how the war on drugs has racist origins and acts as a catalyst for racial inequality.  As Paul explains in this speech from 1988 (, the same year he supposedly wrote racists newsletters, anti-drug laws actually began as ways to target and eliminate minorities; using opium to push out Chinese immigrants, and other substances were used against blacks, Latinos, Latin American Jews and so on.

Since drugs came through places like the Panama Canal, Mexico, Jamaica and New Orleans, the targeting of drugs for prohibition carried a racial component, aimed at the removal of unwelcome groups. Today, Paul says that the today punishment of people of color is severally disproportionate, stating that while blacks only make up 14% of drug abusers, 36% of those arrested for drugs are black and over 60% of those who end up in prison for drugs are black. Do you hear anyone else making this point?

In the same speech Paul stated that “a system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and NO PRIVILEGES. Today inner city folks, MINORITIES, ARE PUNISHED UNFAIRLY in the war on drugs,” and repealing the war on drugs is a way to achieve “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW.” Under today’s laws, a 3rd time nonviolent drug offender can be sent to prison FOR LIFE while murderers, rapists and pedophiles can be set free, and this is another point I hear him make almost every time he talks about the issue. Who else in politics have ever heard addressing a problem this way?

As I’ve heard Paul go on to point out, those who do make it out of prison, come back into society as hardened criminals, leaving because of overpopulation. To me this is one of the most troubling aspects of the drug war. Along with the military, medical and food industrial complexes, we now have a PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX; that is, private prison companies working together with judges, police and agencies to lock up as many people as possible. Prison is now a quick fix solution to social problems, and for any little crime, because the corporations actually trade stock based on how many people are locked up, making it obscenely profitable to put people away.

Building prisons also creates jobs, but Prison owners save bundles by utilizing prison labor. Since more prisoner’s equals higher profits, they LOBBY CONGRESS TO PASS HARSHER LAWS with LONGER SENTENCES. As always everyone on top gets filthy rich while the poor get punished. Since 1997 government spending on corrections has gone up by 72% ($74 billion) and the number of prisoners in private facilities has increased by around 120%. Think about what this does to the incentive to every STOP crime or strive to depopulate our prisons in the long run. As long as the crime stays in the ghetto where it belongs, and not in our cushy white suburbs, what do we care, right?

Doesn’t anyone realize how dangerous this is? Most real experts agree that our American empire is facing at total economic collapse at the scale of Russia or Egypt, or worse. The monetary system that’s been created is unsustainable, and we’re witnessing its self-destruction with the rise of tent cities sprawl across the country, deadly riots, the militarization of the police, removal basic freedoms and pretty much blatant tyranny. I would say it isn’t much of a stretch to deem such a collapse inevitable. The militarization of and building of refugee camps shows that the government may be preparing for such events. That is also what’s happened to every empire and country that’s fallen into this pattern of debt creation ( How bad it will be is the real question, and what can we do to minimize the damage?

When social unrest is at the level it is today, and the outlook is this grim, the LAST thing we want in our society is overflowing prisons and we are already seeing the terrible results of this problem. Prisons around the country are now being forced to depopulate because they can’t keep up with the rate of incarcerations, releasing violent predators, who are smart enough to know when the police are too busy dealing with social unrest to adequately protect civilians, and they WILL take advantage of these conditions very deliberately.  Protest sites have become hotbeds for sexual assault, and who do we expect to protect our families inside a detention camp, if or when we do reach the point of collapse? Do you think it will be safer than being inside today’s prison system, or safer than the refugee and detention camps in other parts of the world? Is this the future we want for our loved ones?

Ladies and gentlemen… This is really f*cking serious. If you think this is just paranoid ranting, go stick your head on the sand while the world burns down around you, in your weak state of denial. There’s no reason to debate the reality of something that’s happening right under our stupid noses. Reality is reality. We are on a dangerous f*cking path, and we need to stop acting like children and face this NOW, beginning with Ron Paul’s proposal to release ALL NON VIOLENT DRUG OFFENDERS, END the War on Drugs (treating drug addiction as a disease, the way we do with alcohol, and letting the black market self destruct), and combine that with monetary and tax reform measures discussed in the previous chapters, to reduce poverty and thereby reduce crime very significantly. Our aim as a society should be to reduce prison populations. Not increase them for profits…

This is just one aspect of The War on Drugs that’s severely upsetting. Never mind the fact that it’s hundreds of billions of dollars that could be spent on treating addiction, helping the poor, healing our economy, fixing our schools, helping veterans and so on. We can only imagine the ways we could fix our country and thrive as a society if that money was re-directed, along with TRILLIONS from military spending. What a complete and utter tragedy that we’ve been so gullible and complacent for all this time, allowing the money controllers to have their ways with us.  It’s time to stop this game because it’s insanity by definition.

From a libertarian standpoint, Paul rightfully harps the most embarrassingly obvious, debate-ending double standard: alcohol. As he sums up neatly in a CNN interview, “If you think the government should be regulating personal behavior, you have to be for prohibition of alcohol.”  Good enough for me, but aside from the social, economical and philosophical reasons, Ron Paul ALSO hates the Way on Drugs from a medical standpoint. (by the way… Just how many different difficult professions does one person have to succeed in before people start taking you seriously and treating you with the respect you deserve? Doctor, soldier, 4-term congressman with a consistent record of PERFECT INTEGRITY, never accepting a dime from ANY special interest group? I’d say the man has earned SOME trust, and honestly what more could you really ask for in a leader?) Dr. Paul doesn’t pull any punches on this front. Regarding medical marijuana, he says the government is keeping medicine away from the sick.

Anyone who thinks marijuana is a superficial topic doesn’t understand that as a medicine for cancer and muscular dystrophy, it provides benefits and effects that no other drug can. As usual, Paul has remained consistent on his position about this for decades, stating that he believes it can be very useful as a medicine. But even if the drug is being used recreationally, Paul maintains that it is not the government’s job to control our personal behavior or protect us from ourselves.

By comparison, Obama is PATHETIC on this issue. He is NOT for legalization, and does not bring up those issues that Paul discusses. He believes we should “re-think the way we approach the issue” and that the drug war has failed. But just like with his other wars, that doesn’t mean he intends to stop it. It means throw more money at it and expand the effort. The closing of medical dispensaries has actually INCREASED under Obama, when one of his promises was to scale back such policies, and they continue to this day. It must be nice not having ANY legal obligation to follow through on promises, which the president does not.  H

ere’s a video that does a pretty nice job of illustrating the difference between Paul and Obama regarding the war on drugs, along with some other food for thought:

Paul vs Obama on Drug War:

Paul on Medical Weed:

Ron Paul Drug War on Race:

Chapter on Drug War from Paul’s Book:

Prison Industrial Complex:

End of America:

Collapse Trailer:

Paul Collapse Warning:


Ron Paul wants to do away with the department of education, and of course everyone’s been encouraged to think he doesn’t believe poor kids have a right to go to school, because to Hell with them, they’re poor. Obviously that idea’s nonsense. What he really wants to do is transition away from public education because it’s failed to deliver and all but destroyed education in America. If we just take a second to look around, it’s very obvious that education is at a crisis point, and this is the root of so many social problems.

Since the federal government took control of education we’ve seen the quality of education in this country decrease to point of making us an international embarrassment. Schools are filled with violence, crime and drug abuse. As the deterioration continues the cost rises, and students bear the brunt with increased class sizes, the removal of extra curriculars and so on. They’re also being improperly fed with processed food and the lies that are taught in our history and economics courses. Our public school system is a disaster and a crime that affects EVERYTHING IN OUR FUTURE. We should be SCRAMBLING to resolve this as a society, and rejecting the conventional approach is the first major stride we can take.

What Ron Paul wants to do about this is create other options for students who are stuck between an option that’s no good, and an option they can’t afford. In a method that is similar to the way he’d make healthcare universally available, state vouchers and subsidies would be given to those who want to start private schools of their own, which would compete with public schools and provide better options for regular people; not just rich people. It should be LEGAL for families to opt out of our criminally and disastrously ineffective public education system, and run schools independently how they see fit.

The schools could adopt their own policies and budgets, teach the truth about history and economics, only serve natural non-processed foods etc. States and private organizations can do a far better job of managing their systems independently to make these types of institutions possible. It’s the federal government has proven to ineffective and corrupt.

Alternative schools and home schools should be allowed as options, and nobody should be forced to participate in a failed system, OR be forced to pay for it. Let them buy into the alternative instead. Yes, this also means that ignorant folks must be allowed to teach their kids the Bible as science, but we have no control over that anyway, and we wouldn’t anyone else tell us how to raise our kids either. The best we can do is PROTECT LIBERTY as much as possible and make THAT the main priority of our government, because the freer society is, the faster progress can occur, and people can be allowed to make their own decisions in the grand scheme of things.

This is the lesson that Ron Paul is trying to teach: liberty is not just an empty term. It’s the answer to so many of our problems. Stuff like that is the whole point of freedom, and we’ve been brainwashed into forgetting this. We should allow freedom to do its job and help us advance progress.

Education is also another example of an issue that ties directly back to the FED. Once we reverse inflation education will become affordable for everyone and it will improve drastically. When I say drastically, I’m talking about an end to cutting valuable programs and extra curriculars, growing class sizes, and students having the ability pay for a full year of classes with one summer job. Loans would also be available through the schools themselves and not the federal government, and it will be in the interest of the schools to do this at reasonable interest rates. There is no reason education should be too expensive for ANYONE to afford. Everyone should have access to quality education (not just rich white kids) and in reality the federal government has done nothing significant to advance this cause. We need to accept this and move on to better solutions.

#18 Ron Paul is the best for Equal Rights

In his 60 minutes interview, Ron Paul states, without hesitation, that gays should be allowed to marry (years before Obama did), and he’s also been known to make fun of his republican opponents for being anti-gay (as well as anti-muslim) when talking to people like Jay Leno. My favorite instance of Paul expressing his views on this was when he was being interviewed by some piece of sh*t from the religious right who thought we should ban gays in the military and said God wouldn’t bless a battalion of unrepentant homosexuals in war.

Paul immediately responded that “we’re all God’s children, so I have trouble with that,” also making it clear that he disagreed with his frame of mind from a medical stand point. He didn’t stop there. He went on to point out that there is no such thing as a -gay problem-, explaining that if you want to punish immoral behavior in places like the military, you also have to punish and ban anyone who abuses their family, abuses drugs etc. You can’t cherry pick homosexuality because you consider it abhorrent behavior and treat it differently from everything else.

How is it possible that this guy’s a republican? I’ve never heard a conservative go as far as illustrating the sheer stupidity and hypocrisy behind the double standards in homophobia.

Now, it is possible that Ron Paul’s personal view is that marriage should only happen between a man and a woman (although I’ve never heard him say that), but as a libertarian he is extremely adamant about the fact that the constitution doesn’t allow him to impose his personal or religious views on anyone else – and that is ALL “marriage protection” is. Paul wants the government to stay out of marriage all together because it’s a religious institution, and we’re supposed to have a separation of church and state.

What business does the federal government have interfering with a religious institution anyway? The churches should be allowed to set their own rules about what they’ll acknowledge as they continue to evolve as attendance dictates. As more churches begin to open up and recognize same sex unions, more states will adopt policies that support marriage equality. People will continue to evolve as well, as progress occurs and they can see visible proof that there is nothing to hate or fear about marriage equality. I believe marriage equality is inevitable at this point, but I also believe that federal mandates, whether they are for or against it, will only slow the process by creating a defensive reaction. I like Paul’s idea of getting the federal government out of it completely. I also like that he would never allow a federal ban on same sex marriage, which is what most well-known republicans want, and he was AGAINST Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Paul on Freedom of Choice:

Ron Paul Anti-gay Myth:

Ron Paul Marriage Chapter:

Paul vs the Religious Right:

Paul on Leno:

Paul Explaining his Bachmann Rip:

#19 GUN CONTROL: The Liberal’s Drug War

As much as I dislike guns I believe that gun control is about as effective in preventing gun violence, as the drug war is in preventing drug abuse. All it does is create a black market where it is easier for criminals to sell and purchase guns without proper procedures and background checks. The federal government has failed over and over again when attempting to control violence and crime, so it makes more sense to put the responsibility on the seller. That way if they’re careless about how they sell and who they sell to, and the action results in a massacre, THEY can be held fully accountable for their actions, without being able to shift any of the responsibility onto the federal government, for not having the “right regulations.” When corporations can’t share the blame this way, victims have more to gain from them, instead of going after the federal government for compensation or change.

This approach would create a healthy incentive for gun sellers to be very careful about the way they do business, and not just sell as many guns as possible to whoever will pay for them. Furthermore, a person who is inclined to go on a shooting rampage is A) not concerned about legal ramifications, and B) can just as easily build a bomb, drive a truck into a building or set it ablaze.

I’ve spoken to some good conservatives, even some who are further to the right, who humbly agree that the drug war is a pointless and destructive failure. There’s no reason for Liberals to be stubborn about the gun issue once they fully understand the different angles. As I mentioned, I’m not a gun person either, but it’s not about the guns. It’s about the violence, which is rooted in many of the social problems that Paul wants to start correct.

I know that there are many who passionately defend the right to bear arms because it’s the last line of defense against tyranny, which I understand, but also find slightly amusing. I agree that we are well on our way into tyranny and live in a police state, but if the government does decide to take over, they’ll have more guns than we will, and it’s hard to imagine our measly arsenals having much of an effect. That said, I do think it’s undeniable in certain instances of mass murder, that the only thing which could have reduced the amount of death was another armed citizen. So, if criminals are allowed to arm themselves willy-nilly, regardless of gun control, the federal regulations only make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themselves in such an instance. This is logical. Let’s move on.

#20 Let’s Get Rid of the CIA. No, Seriously…

The Federal Reserve chapter should partially explain why the CIA is a problem for us, but the topic of gun violence brings them back to mind, and not just because of their heavy involvement in weapons trafficking and arms dealing. While I know that it sounds shamelessly conspiratorial to think that the CIA might be connected to mass killings and tragedies like the movie theater massacre in Colorado, part of me can’t help but want that possibility investigated, however remote, considering some of the things we now KNOW about the CIA.

It is well documented, for example, that the CIA was involved in illegal mind control experiments under a program called Project MKUltra. This barbaric program is infamous for its nonconsensual use of LSD and other chemicals for “behavioral modification,” along with sensory deprivation and other truly sick methods of torture on unwitting patients or prisoners of war. The first human experimentation doctors were Nazis smuggled in by the CIA following WW2, to exploit for mind control experiments, and the creation of assassins and killers who will act against their own self-interest. Another experimental method under this program was the use of ELF, or extremely low frequency radio waves, which interfere with human brain waves and can be used for brain washing and triggering rage, memory loss, sense-of-time loss etc.

Now, I’m sure this Colorado shooter is just another privileged person who “went crazy” one day and decided to systematically execute over a dozen people at close range, but since we know that the CIA has testing facilities in Colorado, Virginia, and other homes of strange massacres, I would like to have all possibilities to be explored openly, JUST IN CASE. If something like this is plausible, wouldn’t you want to make sure? Or is that not enough dead people to entertain something that might be deemed (gasp) conspiratorial? I guess that shouldn’t be a surprise considering how many people are still religiously attached to the official story of 9/11.

If we can dismiss hard facts about an event of that size just from hearing or thinking the word “conspiracy,” unwilling to even consider another argument when thousands were murdered right in front of our faces, getting away with MKUltra should be relatively easy.

But hey, who needs MKUltra, when you can give a simple word like “conspiracy” so much power? That trick alone is enough to make people magically forget that even our FBI has been involved in acts of domestic terrorism, which would help our government pass new freedom killing, big brother regulations. It’s amazing how easy it is to control public perception through the use of language in public discourse. It must feel great to have that amount of influence.

Conspiracy theories aside, is it even possible that our very own CIA could possibly be anywhere near this corrupt or immoral? In his book Liberty Defined Ron Paul details the history and hidden realty of the CIA perfectly, but I will even take it a step further, and say what he can’t: the CIA is a terrorist organization. Settle down… I know that the agency is filled with excellent people who have the best intentions.  I know this because so many have resigned in disgust and spoken out, such as John Perkins (, the author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman, and peak oil activist Michael Ruppert (, who blew the whistle on CIA drug trafficking, saw friends get murdered and had his career ruined as a result. Former CIA Director William Colby also stated that “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”

But wait… Just why the Hell would the CIA be involved in drug trafficking? Because it allows them to self finance, as Paul points out, and they use private contractors, which makes it extremely difficult for congress to control or monitor them. Not even the president has full knowledge of their actives, which traditionally include assassinations, secret renditions, waging wars and overthrowing foreign governments, just as they overthrew the pro-western democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953, and installed a dictator, creating the mess we have today.

Such activities are of course illegal under international law, but they support the interests of the World Bank and their primary industries, so anyone who questions their secret operations, or challenges the legitimacy of the institution, is made to look radical and unpatriotic. Engaging in such activities in the name of “national security” has become widely accepted in our culture anyway, so there isn’t much in the way of resistance. The DNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) is supposed to be in control of the CIA, along with 16 other intelligence agencies, but just the “size and scope” of their operations, according to Paul, make it virtually impossible for the DNI to monitor their activities and protect our interests.  Don’t worry though… That’s only costing taxpayers $80 billion/year. I do wonder exactly how much we’re spending on the CIA overall, but that information is classified. Not even kidding…

Do we need a CIA? The CIA is supposed to be for intelligence gathering, which we will always have. But their secret activities and black ops missions have nothing to do with this, and everything to do with serving the banker’s cartels; making a business out of terrorism, assassinations, war and torture, with full control of our drones and WMDs. Intelligence gathering means learning as much as you can about someone who is or might become our enemy. But that would be far less necessary, if we fixed our foreign policy. Paul cites Sweden and Costa Rica as examples of nations that are not under threat because they are non-aggressive, and don’t participate in bombing or interference of other nations’ affairs. According to Paul, “legitimate intelligence should be a narrowly defined and tightly controlled process. If it isn’t, by its very nature it can get totally out of control with clandestine operations. An all powerful, all secret intelligence agency can become a government onto itself.”

The CIA is largely responsible for most of the world’s political instability, and after the lies they fed the public about external threats and weapons of mass destruction, they have zero credibility. The answer is no. We can still have intelligence gathering under the protection world’s most powerful military HERE AT HOME, without this shadow government we call the CIA. I’ve even heard Paul remark that having such an organization is “uncharacteristic” of a free society, and he is the only candidate who is brave enough to bravely propose its abolition.

CIA Chapter from Paul’s book:

Confessions of an Economic Hitman:

Rupert confronting CIA Director:

ABC MKUltra Documentary:

#21 The Government is Trying to Poison you

Yes the title of the chapter means exactly what it says, and there is only one person running for president who is trying to stop this, or is EVEN TALKING ABOUT IT. Ron Paul is known for being outspoken on the dangers of mandated vaccinations and immunization policies, from both a political and medical point of view. Paul gives credit to the Polio vaccine and others that have been helpful, but many have been linked to ADHD, SIDS, Autism and Alzheimer’s, chronic illness, paralysis, cardiac arrest and so on. This evidently related to the mercury content of various vaccines. Every time there is a new “threat” to the public’s health, such as the Swine Flu, the government attempts to make these laws more aggressive and mandatory.

The problem with all of this, as Paul points out, is that there was already a swine flu scare in 1976, when he and the other physician in congress where the only two who voted against the immunization program. Their instincts were correct. 1 person died from swine flu, and 25 from the vaccine itself. Many more died from the standard flu, and other illnesses such as tuberculosis, and they continue to every year, which is why the media attention and hysteria over the swine flu and is comically transparent and utterly revealing.

Immunization laws are partially about increasing our dependency on the medical industry, and also about social conditioning: big business establishing its authority via the government, to do whatever they want to with us and our bodies whenever they declare a state of emergency. This opens up the door to all kinds of abuse that we are witnessing today, such as states being showered with toxic cancer-causing insecticide to “protect us against the West Nile virus,” which has less than 1% chance of even harming someone with an infection. And then there is the forced radiation and fondling of our children at airports, another subject which Ron Paul is extremely passionate about.

I always found the subjects that Ron Paul is fixated on both fascinating and amusing. Who Hell is this guy talking about vaccinations, raw milk and airport fondling? It seems so random and peculiar at first, but when you learn about his reasons for harping on these issues, it becomes clear that they provide important lessons and striking examples of how lost and oppressed we’ve become under the current system.

But why would the government want to radiate and poison us? Well…We already know that sickness and death are the largest industries, together with war and petroleum, and as Paul correctly states in one of his video addresses, there are people who take advantage of public health scares. This should be no surprise. There is a lot to gain in keeping us sick, weak, desperate and at their mercy, with the need for more drugs, expensive treatments and so on.

And how could the government be this evil? Obviously it’s not that simple and there’s no grand conspiracy that everyone is involved in, but liberals should know better than anyone just how evil and destructive the largest corporations are capable of being. You should not have to be convinced of how much blood is on the hands of big oil and big medicine. THOSE are the institutions that own the government, with control over both parties and the electoral process. And that is why the argument over big business vs the federal government, or left vs right is a waste of time. We live in an age when they are one in the same. Once you can actually accept that as the full reality, as opposed to some exaggerated cynical attitude, you will understand how the government can be so “evil” as to profit from more sickness, death and destruction and, and preserve a system that perpetuates it.

Whatever makes people filthy rich is going to occur, so we have to attack problems on that level; attack the profitability and quit expecting the government to do something on our behalf. It’s too late for that.  I repeat: the government works for them, not for you. It will always serve THEIR interests. Not yours…. How much longer we allow genocide to continue right under our noses is up to us. The choice is ours. The system is too far gone. We need to reject it and take back the control over our lives, our money, our health and our freedom. We need to opt out of this system of enslavement and only support those who will genuinely support OUR interests.

Ron Paul on Swine Flu:

Ron Paul on Immunization Shots:

Shots in the Dark:

Vaccine Dangers:

The Idiot Cycle: (also referenced in the organic foods chapter)

#22 Don’t be Thrown off by ABORTION: Pro-life vs. Pro-choice = Semantics

This was one of the toughest aspects of Ron Paul for me to come to grips with. I have always been a passionate defender of a woman’s right to choose. I believe that in a free society women should have the right to decide when they’re ready to become parents. If a woman or girl is raped, or impregnated by one of her family members, that right has been unjustly taken away from her. Only the most primitive and cruel society would the force a victim to see that pregnancy through, so the violation can continue for 9 months, rather than allowing a doctor to terminate it in its earliest stage. This would be based purely on some religious notion that an undeveloped zygote has a soul. Therefore taking this action would equate to the “murder of a child.” For Christ’s sake…

Nature aborts life in its beginning stages all the time and modern society offers all kinds of medical procedures that adjust or interfere with our bodies and reproductive organs, preventing life from being able to develop where it would otherwise resulted in its natural course. Human controlled abortion has also been around for a lot longer than surgical procedures have even existed. In some early cultures women would give themselves abortions using herbs that cause still-births if they tired of their mates, so it’s not like abortion is something new that was introduced by medicine, even as a form of birth control.

That’s not to say that I think we should use that method today or that abortion should be used as a form birth control. Sure, I would be supportive of the option if I got someone pregnant through pure carelessness, but I would certainly regret getting us into the position and treating the matter carelessly, because I do have a respect for life and believe it should be treated as responsibly as possible. I don’t think anyone who believes in a woman’s right to choose thinks abortions are happy or non-tragic events, and I think everyone would like to find practical ways for society to reduce the need for abortions and prevent unwanted pregnancies, so in the end, everyone wants the same thing. It SHOULD NOT be such a divisive topic (even though it’s constantly used as a wedge issue), because it is probably one of the least black and white issues we face.

It’s important the we change the discussion on abortion and find a rational way engage in it because it is treated in such extremely varying ways throughout the world, such as China where the government will force women to have abortions for population control, or many other places where women and doctors are executed for having or performing the procedure, regardless of any complex circumstances.

When it comes to Ron Paul’s, stance on the issue, I’ve learned that it is very different from the “pro-life” position that I’ve become familiar with over the years, which is what all of his republican opponents subscribe to. First of all, Ron Paul would NEVER allow a federal ban on abortion as the others would like to, and returning us to the back alley era. That’s probably the most important point to keep in mind: it’s the legal/constitutional aspects of Roe Vs Wade, that Ron Paul takes issue with. Do NOT confuse that with wanting to use the federal government to stop abortion. Those are two very different things and you might not even know that it’s possible to be pro-choice AND against Roe Vs Wade. Why just assume that some law is the ultimate answer to dealing with the issue of abortion or reproductive rights? I know regulators always do a bang up job on everything, but how about we actually look at this carefully and discuss it…

For Ron Paul, being pro-life is a PERSONAL moral position, which admirably comes from a very deep and genuine respect for life. It became extra personal during his years as a physician when he witnessed an illegal abortion, in which the fetus was fully developed and crying when it was removed. Instead of doing what they could to save the baby, the doctors placed it in a bucket and put it away as if nothing happened, which is horrifying to me, even as someone who’s pro-choice, and that is certainly NOT what I envision when I talk about protecting re-productive rights. Even a baby as small as one pound can have its life saved, so it’s not something to be treated lightly or with indifference.

Roe vs Wade actually makes it legal and thereby profitable for doctors to perform abortions up to minutes before birth, when a woman who dumps her child minutes after will be locked up and charged with murder. The law also contradicts itself by holding doctors legally responsible for the life of the fetus during medical procedures, meaning they’ll be sued or prosecuted if the fetus is harmed while under their care, but it gets even more complicated. Sometimes a botched abortion will occur, such as the one Paul witnessed, and those doctors are suddenly charged with murder or wrongful death if they can’t keep that same fetus alive that they were trying to abort. Similar contradictions arise with homicide and manslaughter as well.

So, as a society we DO protect the rights of the unborn to some extent, but having a blanket federal regulation over an issue as complicated as abortion leads to all sorts of these deficiencies and unintended consequences, such as hack doctors who make a business out of doing it under any circumstances, preying on the vulnerable, sometimes allowing young teenagers to have around three abortions in just one year, and things of that nature.

Paul’s belief is that instead of legalizing abortion across the board, creating “abortion on demand,” we should follow the constitution and allow states to set their own limits and regulations for abortion because “the more complicated an issue is, the more localized the solution should be.” I know that’s kind of a scary thought, but stay with me for a moment, because he is also completely sensitive to the most extreme circumstances, such as rape, the mother’s health and the health of her re-productive organs.

As Paul explains in a great discussion with Whoopi Glodberg and the other liberal feminists on the The View, he fully understands and acknowledges that we can’t create a world without abortions while getting them to acknowledge that there should be limitations. He explained that abortions were performed in hospitals under such circumstances, but the law would be there ON PRINICPLE as an acknowledgement of respect for life. If it was a rape situation it would be reported and treated as such, and if the mother’s health was in danger, the procedure would be exempt from the state’s anti-abortion regulations.

What most don’t realize is that our country was already moving in this direction prior to Roe. By the early 1970s a third of the states had liberalized or repealed federal anti-abortion laws within state jurisdiction because doctors were defying them and performing abortions illegally, to prevent women from having it done unsafely. This was the answer to de-criminalizing abortion in our country and being able to help women under difficult circumstances, but the states would still be able to say abortion is illegal under normal circumstances, or that they have certain restrictions if that’s what the people wanted. Roe was the government’s way of exploiting this trend to incorporate it with their healthcare profit machine, making it legal in any stage, under any circumstance overriding any state-level control over the matter, encouraging the loose treatment we see today.

Paul is also firmly against federal funding for abortion because forcing people to pay for something they’re against is immoral and unconstitutional, but he also notes in his book Liberty Defined that proponents of federal funding for abortion are taking the stupidest possible position for their cause because all it accomplishes is providing ammunition for those who seek a federal ban to fight them with; the extreme pro-lifers you and I know best, who actually hate and attack Ron Paul for not being a “true pro-lifer.” Those groups are a common enemy.

While Ron Paul might not view the issue as a simple matter of choice, strict as he is about personal liberties, but he DOES believe in the states right to choose between being illegal under normal circumstances, legal with some restrictions, or even legal with no restrictions. None of these approaches take away the ability for a woman to have a safe abortion if she needs one. It’s just the way it is handled legally that would vary from state to state on the basis of a variety of circumstances.  Ending the federal law would NOT END ABORTION, nor does Paul expect it to, but it would be a practical measure to reduce abortions, that would work together with the monetary reform that would improve conditions with better education, declining poverty, healthier families and so on.

But there is even more to appreciate about Ron Paul’s version of pro-life. For one, he is completely non-hypocritical. He does not believe in capital punishment, aware of all those who have been wrongly executed, and the routine injustices of our legal system towards people of color. He is also 100% anti-war, AND he supports stem cell research on a state controlled bases.

Few things annoy me more than anti-abortion demonstrators who wave signs outside of clinics, because aside from usually being pro-war and pro-capital punishment, they don’t do ANYTHING to support their cause or address the problem at its root; trying to fix poverty and education perhaps. They can twist knives into the wounds of sexual assault victims with graphic images of mutilation all they want to and it will not do one thing to prevent an abortion or an unwanted pregnancy in society. These people are useless and Ron Paul is nothing like them, so don’t let the abortion issue scare you away from him.

Regardless of how you feel about Paul’s position on abortion, I think we can all agree that it could be A LOT worse, and his stances on other issues (such as the FED) pretty much trump everything else. But I feel comfortable on this one too. I respect the nature of Dr. Paul’s pro-life position, and I wish all pro-lifers were pro-life the way he is; understanding about the complexities of different situations and willing to make exceptions for things like rape. Paul regards the level at which we perform abortions in society as tragic, and on certain levels, so do I. A part of the tragedy is that many abortions happen for economic reasons, which is understandable because kids are IMPOSSIBLE to afford without a large income.

A healthy or rapidly healing economy would make such decisions less necessary. More people would leave open the option of welcoming a newcomer into their good healthy home where they can offer that child a promising future. Not a terrible thing, and don’t even think the word overpopulation. Abortion as population control is a very sick and dangerous notion. We have the resources to take care of many more people if we change the way they’re managed. Furthermore, studies show that unplanned pregnancies decrease significantly with the improvement of education, healthier families on stable incomes, better nutrition, access to technology etc. It’s another reason we NEED monetary reform, tax reform, localized food production, the end of big business AND big government etc.

If these are the results Ron Paul wants to see manifest in a new society, my pro-choice beliefs need not stand in the way. I do not feel any defensive instincts with regards to our differences here, and I think it should be possible for us to meet him half way on this one.

Here are the best clips I could find with Ron Paul discussing Abortion and Stem Cell Research:

On abortion and stem cell research:

On The View:

Paul on the reasons for his position:

Abortion Chapter:

#23 Ignore his son Rand – They are NOT the same

While I was always hopeful that Rand Paul would uphold his father’s legacy or be the next Ron Paul, I’ve always been uncomfortable with his neoconservative undertones. While he incorporates a lot of his father’s rhetoric about civil liberties, it’s always struck me as sounding slightly disingenuous; like he was trying to ride his dad’s coat tails, and use the most popular ideas to launch his own career. It appears in fact that it Rand has never defined himself as a libertarian. He is a conservative republican, with a different take on foreign policy than his dad; voting for sanctions against Iran, and in favor of keeping Guantanamo Bay open.

These positions sharply conflict with his father’s message and movement, and they’re a deal breaker for many who oppose our current foreign policy. I was also uncomfortable with the way he handled himself in certain instances, giving me the impression the he doesn’t interpret or understand the “principles of freedom” the way his father does. On a radio show he was asked about the Civil Rights Act, for instance, and he responded with sort of a guilty sarcastic chuckle, almost as though he thought it was cute be an outsider on the issue because the position is controversial. Then he explained that he’d want to be able to make his own modifications to the bill. Ron Paul is about 1000 times more pragmatic than this, and knows how to treat sensitive subjects, explaining his position the best he can in the time he’s given (which is never enough).

Obviously the Civil Rights movement is very important and NOTHING to laugh or be cocky about. Holding that position is not supposed to be about his mystique as a politician, and that attitude does make him look anything like the real-life phenomenon that is his father. He made a fool of himself again during the BP Oil spill, stating that the federal government should take its “boot off the throat” of BP. Only a fool would phrase it that way after so many others were victimized. If he wanted to explain the government’s role in setting conditions for these types of catastrophes as his father did (with a tone of compassion) so we think more broadly about preventative measures, that would be one thing.

Ron Paul warned us that we have to be careful about being panicked into allowing new federal policies in response to catastrophic events, because it always leads to more problems rather than solving them. Of course he didn’t have anywhere near enough time to explain the different aspects for all the indoctrinated listeners, but take their “boot off GM’s throat?” Whose side is Rand Paul on?

Ron Paul is on the people’s side, and they have every right to be upset with BP, ALONG WITH the federal government. According to the language Rand was using, he’s apparently on the side of big business, painting the image of a sympathetic victim. Has this guy ever listed to his dad? It is BIG business and the federal government TOGETHER that create the problems, and together THEY press their boot into the throat of SMALL businesses and the 99%. Does he really think BP is one of the businesses that gets oppressed and bullied by the system? Very unsettling language… He’s also less shy about his position that marriage should only happen between a man and a woman, while Ron’s point has always been that his personal/religious views on the matter are irrelevant, as long as he isn’t allowed to force them on anyone else, which opens up the door to change and “brings people together,” as he often points out.

Clearly we are looking at two very different creatures. Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney just verified the impression that he is another wishy-washy, ball-player. Not an intellectual revolutionary prodigy of truth like his old man… I have heard every justification for his controversial endorsement, but the fact remains that Ron Paul has NEVER compromise his values, voted for or endorse his rivals, because they are part of the establishment, which has so much blood on its hands, and THIS is the key to his diehard following. He did not endorsed or vote for John McCain, George W. Bush or any those who came before. He spent his entire career sticking to his principles no matter what the political cost, and was a voice truth no matter how controversial it was.

Rand on the other hand, endorsed the candidate whose top contributor is Goldman Sachs, after he aggressively stated that he wanted to have them audited. He also spoke out against the Bilderberg Group, which is an annual gathering of around 140 of the most powerful and influential people in Europe and North America, evidently to decide the best course for our nations over the coming years. These conferences are closed to the public even though it has everything to do with us, and Mitt Romney is member of this reclusive organization, which affects more than we want to imagine.

Supporting someone like Mitt Romney is supporting the enemy of everything Ron Paul stands for, and there is no valid justification for a betrayal of this magnitude. The only idea that I’m still open to is that his family was threatened or he was coerced in some way. That’s what ultimately happened to Ross Perot before he disappeared, and I don’t think something like that is impossible. In a very twisted sense this sounds like wishful thinking. Of course I’d never want ANYONE or their family to be threatened, but I want to believe this wasn’t his choice and he was forced into taking this action while under duress. It’s the only way I would ever be able to trust him again after getting behind a neocon just to support republican nominee. We are talking about the same people who are for privatized war, privatized torture, domestic drones, domestic spying and basically everything Ron Paul has spent his career fighting against with his messages of liberty, along with figures on the left who we’ve forgotten or never known.

Rand also made the depressingly unsavory choice of making this announcement on Sean Hannity, Ron’s biggest arch enemy of the mainstream media, and one of the most embarrassingly disrespectful idiots he’s had the misfortune of having to deal with. Did Rand not even consider what a tremendous insult this would be?

The leading justification I’ve heard from Rand supporters regarding the Romney endorsement is that it’s “important to win”: the implication being that he’s going to play ball in order to infiltrate the establishment, and change the system from within. I’m not sure exactly what the expectation is for one person in the system playing by the rules, but I think we all know that this has never worked.

Those who push for change that would actually benefit the people over big business, are alienated and made out to be radicals. The success of figures like Ron Paul, or Ralph Nader, is base on their consistently dedication to the truth, which means taking all kinds of abuse for decades. Most people like them go completely unrecognized and unrewarded, if not punished, and those two have had far more punishment than reward. So, it really isn’t about being able to win, and to those who still believe that winning is important, I must ask. exactly what you expect to see happen, once you’ve “won”? What changes and differences are really expecting to see as a result of “winning?”  What exactly do you think will happen if you “lose” that isn’t happening right now?

The only way that winning matters is if A) the contest is legitimate, and B) the winner is genuine, honest and supportive of YOUR interests. Otherwise, what’s the point? This brings me to my final chapter…

Ron vs Rand:

#24 Why Vote for Someone Who Can’t “Win”?

The current administration has proven that nobody is going to help you or tell you the truth, and that big business not going anywhere. Now that we understand why it makes no difference who wins the elections, that we have no control over what happens and that, as far as society is concerned, the same things will happen either way, let’s take a look at what voting for Ron Paul would do. Writing in Ron Paul in a MASS PROTEST, or refusing to participate all together, would accomplish two things.

First, it would communicate that the majority of our country and the majority of the 99% understand that the system is rigged. It sends the message that enough of us are finally on to them, and that the game is up. Think of it as firing a warning shot and just imagine the terror they would feel when their measly aristocratic billionaire club see’s that a record number of people boycotted one of the key components to their control. It would be clear that the masses are finally onto their scheme, that there will be no way to stop the revolution, and the inevitable change that follows will happen on our terms. Not theirs… This is probably our last chance to take control of the situation this way as much as possible. Otherwise it will be the under the control of our new military government as the new depression unfolds, which we have only seen the beginning of. I promise you that.

The other message a mass Paul write-in would send is that we not only understand the system is rigged, but that we understand how, because enough of us finally know about the Federal Reserve, and how it’s used to control almost every major aspect of our social system. It will be clear that he has finally succeeded in getting his message out, and there will be no way to stop masses from rising up. Fighting us with their military, taking away our resources and trying to break our spirit will only add fuel to the fire. Yes they WILL fight back, and it will get even uglier. But if the establishment wages war on its own people in response to a social uprising, we will know that the fight is justified and that this conclusion is inevitable. The question is, are we going to lead the changes that follow, or will we just let them enslave us in a more traditional sense, once we’ve fully self-destructed?

Ron Paul is the only person ANYONE in society should even consider voting for this time around. The lesser of two evils is BULLSH*T. We can change more by NOT VOTING as a key strategy in our uprising, and we should ONLY vote our conscience. If you feel like you just don’t know enough about the candidates to make an informed decision, do not vote for an establishment figure that you think seems less bad. DON’T VOTE. Do what George Carlin does and STAY HOME:

George Carlin on Not Voting:

Peter Joseph on voting for Ron Paul:

More non-voting and social unrest speeches:


“Banned” 60 Minutes Interview:

Full National Press Club Speech:

Full Speech NH:

Full Speech SC:

Speech on Compassion:

War Drums Speech:

Anonymous Paul video:

Tear Jerking Paul Video:

Chinese Troops in Texas:

Ron Paul A New Hope:

Buffalo Springfield Ron Paul ad:

Ron Paul Bad Dream:

Ron Paul What If:

Paul vs War Propaganda:

Paul’s Masses:

Paul Imagine:

CIA Chief Endorses Ron Paul:

Bill Maher on Ron Paul:

Maher interview:

Paul Nader Kucinich Alliance/Occupy:

Nader on Paul:

Progressive Libertarian Alliance:

Nader on Tea Party:

Nader’s Grand Alliance:

Paul Anti War Video:

Jefferson of our Time:

Top 10 Paul Moments:

Neutering Newt (priceless):

Best of Paul in 15mn:

Greatest Moments:

Paul Defending Occupy:

Paul vs Establishment:

Paul destroying Romney:

Destroying Debate Moderator:

Destroying Michelle Bachmann:

Destroying Rick Santorum:

Smacking Down Anchor:

Paul vs Establishment Ad:

World Endorsing Ron Paul:

Media vs Paul:

Drug War on Compassion:

On Poverty:

Paul Anti-Neocon:

Democrats for Paul:

Paul on Left and Right:

Howard Stern on Ron Paul:

Compassion on Dr. Paul:

Compassion and the Human Spirit:

Ron Paul the Movie:

RNC Destroying Democracy:

FAVORITE MIND BLOWING VIDEOS AND DOCUMENTARIES (I recommend the full trilogy in sequential order) (The Money Masters) (The Secret of Oz) (Paradise or Oblivion) (IFC’s New World Order)  (Collapse –full movie on Youtube & Netflix St) (End of America) (Truth Rising) (The Obama Deception) (Architects and Engineers -9/11 Truth) (Who is Peter Joseph?) (Peter Joseph Lecture: Where are we Going?) (Peter Joseph – Defining Peace) (Thrive -full movie on Youtube) (Disclosure Project –National Press Club) (Why College is a Scam) (Food Matters -full movie on Netflix stream) (RT News -best news channel) (Idiot Cycle) (Escape Fire Trailer) (Peter Joseph vs Stefan Molyneux) (Peter Joseph and Ron Paul Rap –funny) (Peter Joseph on Joe Rogan) (Understanding The Zeitgeist Movement) (Incredible Michael Ruppert Speech –removed from Youtube –if video is choppy, the MP3 plays perfectly)

NOTE: The UFO stuff is more for fun than anything else. I have no idea if there’s truth to any of that, but it’s fascinating, and it does tie into a lot of the subject matter in this essay. Enjoy:)


From → Uncategorized

  1. Maxaphone permalink

    KRS-One is not in Public Enemy.

  2. Jimmy Swagger permalink

    Ah yes, the lovely youtube bibliography.

  3. Having read this I believed it was really enlightening.
    I appreciate you spending some time and energy to put this article together.
    I once again find myself personally spending a significant
    amount of time both reading and leaving comments. But so what, it was still worthwhile!

  4. Magnificent beat ! I wish to apprentice whilst you amend your web site, how can i subscribe for a weblog site?

    The account helped me a acceptable deal. I were tiny bit familiar of
    this your broadcast provided bright clear idea

    • Thank you! I’m glad you find it clear:) Just go to, and you should be able to simply sign up for a blog page. I’m not an expert or anything. I just wanted to publish my essay and make it available to the public, so I could get the ideas across to everyone who think’s they’re progressive, or that what we have now is better than what we had before. Thanks again!

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. My Rabbit Hole on This Horrible Election | progresshawk

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: