Pro-War Essay Fails In So Many Ways

An essay circulated into my inbox last week that made the case for our involvement in the war in Iraq. It is not a new essay. Researching around, I found it was written in July 2006. But despite the age of this essay, there are some who believe that the arguments presented are still valid, even if some may hold some reservation on the details.

Despite the length, I have written a response to most of the points of the essay. I believe that when put under scrutiny, this essay fails miserably to justify our involvement in the Middle East.

I invite comments, both pro and con.

---

At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war

The American people may have been isolationist and pacifist, but not true of the government, at least in Asia. The U.S. put sanctions against Japan for their invasion of China. This is not an “isolationist, pacifist” action. It is basically an attack on Japan’s economy. Implied elsewhere in this essay, such an attack on the economy would justifiably be an act of war. Furthermore, proof has already come out that our government knew before December 7 that an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent and could have been easily defended against.

But why allow such a tragedy? Because it makes it easier for the government to spew its pro-war propaganda and convince a people who don’t want to go to war.

Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico , as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe

I don’t doubt that they such long-range plans, but such plans are hardly viable considering the logistics and size of their military. One only needs to look at us and our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan to show how an endeavor to conquer the U.S. would have been futile. The greatest military power in the world, yet these third world countries have caused us nothing but trouble.

How much more for Germany and Japan had they actually implemented invading America? Considering that Americans at that time loved their 2nd amendment, Japan and Germany would have suffered great losses, therefore weaken their grip on their empires.

Consider this. Germany would have conquered the tiny country of Switzerland, but would have suffered tremendously at the hands of the Swiss because of their well-armed citizenry. How much more would have Germany suffered against America had they actually tried to invade it?

The US was certainly not prepared for war.

Yet, would the Axis have been victorious in conquering a well-armed U.S. citizenry? The author wants us to believe that without a well-armed military, the U.S. would have crumbled. This is nothing more than state worship.

Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America . If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war.

See above. And to add to that, even if Russia had surrendered, the German army suffered tremendous loss and would not have had the man-power to even think of invading America. The author’s argument is simplistic and his conclusions derived without consideration of other factors (e.g. armed citizenry, feasibility of overseas invasion).

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.

And yet here we have Pakistan who already has nuclear weapons and we send them billions of dollars. Ironic! What is to say that this country would remain “friends” with the U.S.? There is enough turmoil in Pakistan from its people to turn that country against us. It is a Muslim country ruled by a U.S. puppet dictator. And we’re worried about Iraq? We’re worried about Iran, who’s nuclear capabilities are still years away?

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US , European, and Asian economies.

The U.S. economy is going to collapse on its own, whether or not the Wahhabis are in control. The U.S. dollar index has dropped so significantly, the only thing the Federal Reserve can do is to either raise the interest rates, like Paul Volcker in the early 80s, causing a severe recession, or inflate the currency, therefore destroying the dollar with massive hyperinflation. To use this argument as a crutch to justify intervening in the Middle East is pointless.

Furthermore, our continued intervention and empire building in the Middle East is adding to the problems of our economy due to deficit spending.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades Saddam is a terrorist! Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians.

Regime change does not justify our intervention in that country. As brutal as Saddam was, his removal only set the stage for the chaos that is going on in that country. His regime was secular and kept all Muslim sects in check.

And since death tolls are being thrown around, how many Iraqis have been killed because of this war? Due to collateral damage on our part and the violent civil war resulting of our intervention, it is estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis have died. Let’s not forget that our intervention in that area under Clinton. When questioned if the death of 500,000 children was worth it, Albright didn’t even bat an eyelash when she said yes. What happened to the Just War theory where we are not supposed to kill the innocent?

And to throw the Iranian deaths in the mix? Our government was the one who funded Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war and we supplied him with the weapons. And now we condemn him for those deaths? Our government is just as guilty of this crime.

One has to wonder, also, how many Assyrian Christians have been completely displaced because of this war. Even God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah had there been 10 righteous living in the cities. Yet here we sit in judgement of Iraq and the 800,000 Assyrian Christians suffer for our intervention.

We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq . We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq , which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

How convenient that the death of Iraqi civilians isn’t even mentioned. And what of the “democratic change” in Iraq? Without a change of heart, democracy is pointless. What if the Wahhabis “win” and actually want a democratic society? Do we deny them that because we don’t agree with their ideology. Sorry, but democracy in that area would not change things. It is a false positive that things will be OK should a democracy be stable in that region.

And this idea of “the ones we get there we won’t have to get here” is foolishness. Our occupation has become a rally point for more Muslims to offer themselves up for sacrifice. We’re lopping off the heads of the hydra, but only creating more heads.

WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor . It began with the Japanese invasion of China . It was a war for fourteen years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own a gain . . a 27 year war.

As I mentioned before, the U.S. laid sanctions against Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. We were intervening before we were intervening.

WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York. It has also cost about 3,000 American lives, which is roughly equivilant to lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States ) in the 9/11 terrorist attack .

This essay is from mid-2006. This war has gone beyond $160 billion (some estimate over a trillion dollars) and we’ve already had more than 4000 American lives lost.

Still, despite the “low cost” of this war, it still goes against a couple of tenets of the Christian Just War theory.

1. We do not have the means to win this war. We either borrow the money from China or just have the money printed to finance this war. Furthermore, you don't win against an idea (terrorism) by putting a bullet into a religious people. Our own Christian history shows that!

2. Non-combatants are dying. It is estimated the 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of the results of our intervention, whether it is directly from our own artillery or sectarian violence.

The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism.

A world dominated by two relatively small countries? They may have dominated their respective areas, but the world? This is a dubious assumption, highly speculative.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq , then we have an ally, like England , in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East . The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world.

This is another highly speculative assumption that democracy would change the hearts of the people. This should be abhorrent to the Christian since it replaces Christ as the changer of hearts.

We have four options:

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

And yet, no one knows what victory actually looks like? We actually had a victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan, yet, now, they are in power again. No pro-war hawk has a clue as to what it would take to be victorious in this war and to maintain that as the status quo.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran 's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).


“As early as next year” would actually refer to this year, yet Iran still doesn’t even have nuclear power! And at best, the technology to create a nuclear weapon is still 5 to 10 years from now. Why does it seem that preventative, pre-emptive war is the only option here? This is nothing more than fear-mongering.

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

OR

4. We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of Europe . It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.

These last two points are so far-fetched that they’re laughable. What Navy do they even have to mount any kind of offensive? What invasion force do they have? Iraq is landlocked and Iran has only one coastline to build a Navy.

France and Germany could be dominated by Jihadist, but not by military means. They'll be dominated because of their own laziness to stifle Muslim revolts in their country, let alone their own laziness to promote the Christian faith.

If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

Again, this is nothing more than fear-mongering.

The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

The implication here is to be the most determined and ruthless in order to win. The author, whether intentional or not, has just advocated the murder of innocents. It's Sherman's March to the Sea!

But this also implies the advocacy of torture, which no Christian should ever condone. There is no justification for it Biblically.

Furthermore, by advocating murder and torture, we redefine the moral high ground. The Golden Rule has no principle in war. Instead, we adopt evolution's "survival of the fittest" without exception.

Remember, perspective is every thing, and America 's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

I actually agree with this. It teaches so little history that Americans grow up with no defense against revised and/or edited history and propaganda. Americans have been so dumbed-down by the socialist school system that they lack any kind of real critical thinking to see through this author’s propaganda.

The stakes are at least as high. A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

Or a world dominated by a tyrannical one-world Marxist ideology that imposes egalitarianism at all levels at the barrel of a gun. That is what our government has become, with the Democrats on the Left and the neoconservatives on the Left. The continuance of this war only serves their purposes, not any kind of Christian worldview. It's just one tyranny trying to conquer another tyranny.

It's difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.

They favor these for the Iraqis, just not the means why which this comes about. It’s a false dilemma.

Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran , Syria , Iraq , Sudan , North Korea , in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you why! They would be killed!

Or maybe it is because their governments don’t want outsiders coming into their country. We certainly aren’t open for foreigners coming into our country and calling upon our government to change their policies (though with the lack of defense at our borders, we've allowed illegal immigrants to spout treasonous diatribes against our nation), so why the double standard here? I’ll tell you why! Because their argument false flat on its face!

Also, who is to say that there aren’t peace activist in those “places that really need peace activism the most”? Just because you don’t hear about them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Maybe the author has never heard of Christian missionaries? Blessed are the peacemakers, those awesome Christians of conviction, who stand up against the tyranny of those foreign governments. And yes, they do get killed.

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.

Again, a far-fetch highly speculative notion that America could be conquered in such a way.

Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy!

You cannot liberate the people of Iraq if they oppose our occupation and the havoc that it has wrought in the land. Anyone who really wishes for the liberation of Iraq would allow the Iraqi people to sink or swim without our interference. By staying, we’ve only traded one dictator for another “Decider”.

---

Final Thoughts

Having kept up with all the Ron Paul news since his announcement for his candidacy back March, there are many pro-war supporters who are realizing that, despite how much they want for us to stay in Iraq and go into Iran, our country cannot do it without destroying our country from within.

Money is the blood of war, plain and simple. By borrowing so much from China and Japan ($2 to $3 billion a day), our country has become debt slaves to them. Our country is also a debt slave to the private investors of the Federal Reserve Bank, who continuously print money out of thin air, therefore devaluing our currency. It is not a matter of if our currency is going to collapse. It is a matter of when. Our extravagent domestic and foreign spending, especially our war expenditures, only hastens the inevitable. Thus is the way of the empire.

So, for those who believe in the fear-mongering that we'll be conquered by Muslim extremist, which provides a strong defense against the Jihadist: A strong or weak economy?

"Conservatives" Respond to Ron Paul

Here is a brief dialogue with the "Conservative" Myspace group on the Issue of Dr. Paul's candidacy. Aside from Rick, all the other 'Conservatives' simply mock Dr. Paul's pro-Constitution platform! What can possibly be said of this? My summation is that Karl Marx would feel well at home amongst such 'Conservatives' and that the enemy is well within our gates now. They've changed all of the old definitions, rewriting them to say the exacy opposite of what they used to say.

I sense dark days ahead my friends...hold fast.

To Mr. Huckabee

Once again, Dr. Paul has proven himself to be more intelligent than the rest of the pack in tonight's New Hampshire Republican debate. Rather than posturing and sucking up to the audience, Dr. Paul stuck to his guns (which the airline pilots should have) and educated the other candidates on what it means to be a true conservative.

But the highlight of the evening came in the exchange between Huckabee and Dr. Paul:



To Mr. Huckabee,

Your position is just incredible. Are you even in touch with the reality of the situation, or do you truly believe that more spilled blood will do the very thing you think it will do?

Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion the historians can have, but we're there.

We bought it because we broke it. We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve.

Mr. Huckabee, we are talking about the blood of Americans and of the Iraqi people. This isn't just something "we broke". This isn't an accident like your analogy of that you made just before the start of the video. I quote:

When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don't pick something off the shelf I can't afford to buy.

Further more, we didn't buy it because we broke it. We bought it first, then broke it! You have it completely backwards! The Iraq War is ours because we went there! And now that we "broke it", you want to try to put the pieces back by continuing the same irrational and destructive ways that "broke it" in the first place?

No, sir, what you propose is foolishness. It's prideful. Foolishness and pride doesn't restore honor. As a pastor, shouldn't you know this? Perpetuating the same foolish policies will never bring honor and will certainly not restore pride, even if we are victorious in Iraq. Do you know why, Mr. Huckabee? Because a river of spilled blood over an unjust war will not cover the multitude of sins our government has committed.

Congressman, we are one nation. We can't be divided. We have to be one nation, under god. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America.

So if the government makes a horrible and detestable decision, we ought to be united like sheep and just follow the leader over a cliff? Sir, you have it backwards. It is the government who should be following the people, not the other way around. The government heads need to be united with the people. This is why Dr. Paul responded to you, saying:

No, when we make a mistake -- when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake.

You may posture about us being the "United States" and not the "divided states," but when 70% of the American people oppose the war, and you refuse to listen to them, then we are a "divided states of America". The division is between the people and the government. That is what Dr. Paul was trying to convey to you.

Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important (inaudible) the Republican Party.

Again, our honor is already lost. To paraphrase Dr. Paul from a previous debate, our government made a wrong diagnosis, so we must change the treatment. Continuing the same treatment is stupid and foolish. Upping the dosage is outright criminal. There is no honor in being committed to a crime.

And Dr. Paul nailed it when he asked:

What do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing, is saving face.

Mr. Huckabee, this war has gone past the point of no return. Honor cannot be restored, and sadly, neither can we save face. What you hope to do is avoid eating humble pie. But our government, through its destructive policies, is going to have to eat a huge slice of humble pie. No, scratch that. Try a four-course humble meal. And "we the people" will suffer for it.

Where have we been?

No, the government hasn't shut us down. They haven't hunted us down. We are still here. Busy and preoccupied with just maintaining life-as-it-is, but alive and well. Time permitting, I'll post some thoughts on current events.

God bless,

Victor

Ron Paul Stuff

In order to help fund Ron Paul's campaign, I created a merchandise store with stickers, bumperstickers, and t-shirts. All proceeds will be going towards Ron Paul's presidential campaign fund. Check it out:

Ron Paulitics Store

Christians vs. The Constitution? I Hope Not

As odd as it may sound, the title of this post is essentially what we are facing in the political arena. The presidential election isn't for another 18 months, but early debates have generated a lot of attention lately, mainly due to U.S. Representative Ron Paul's stance on the U.S. Constitution. If you haven't heard of or know about Ron Paul, he is one of 10 candidates that are seeking to win the Republican primaries, then go on to seeking the presidency. I suggest you get acquainted with him here and here.

When it comes to government policy, no one has the record that he has when it comes to voting consistency. This is because he uses the Constitution as the measure by which he votes. I have yet to hear of another congressman who actually does that.

Christians ought to be tremendously delighted that we have someone who actually believes in following the Constitution. After all, aren't Christians constantly arguing against non-Christians that our Federal government was founded upon Christian principles? There ought to be a groundswell of support for Ron Paul from conservative Christians, but it has been eerily silent. So far, all I've seen in Christian support of Ron Paul is coming from Chris Ortiz of the Chalcedon Foundation.

Maybe silence is better than opposition at this point. Maybe Republican Christians are rethinking their position on a lot of things since Ron Paul burst into the scene at the debates. I sincerely hope so. I sincerely hope they take a good hard look at Ron Paul, because to oppose him is to actually oppose the limits of the Constitution. And to oppose those limits is to oppose the Christian principles that those limits were founded upon.

The Constitution is not perfect, but it the law of the land by which we, as United States citizens, are obligated to uphold. The President even more so. If we, as Christians, won't back a candidate like Ron Paul, then we might as well abandon our arguments that our country and goverment was founded on Christian principles.

Ronny and the Nine Clones

Having watched both the first and second Republican debates, it is easy to see Ron Paul clearly stand out from amongst the cloned candidates. How could he not? The Nine wannabe-Kings were pro-war, while he wasn’t. The Nine want a National ID card, while he didn’t. And though the Nine wanted to cut taxes and reel in spending (haven’t we heard that before?), Ron wanted to get rid of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

Still, though standing so far out of line from the current state of the Republican Party, Ron was hardly acknowledged by the mainstream media. Even though MSNBC, the host of the first debate, had Ron winning their own poll, with the highest approval and the lowest disapproval, not one of their writers acknowledge him as the winner of the debate. Makes me wonder: How do you declare one of the clones a winner if all they do is say the same rhetoric?

But the first debate is old news now. Last night’s debate is THE news.

As it was before in the first debate, Ron received very little air time. In fact, in two rounds of questions, Ron never received a question concerning the sanctity of life and on immigration. It’s likely that there is nothing that Fox News could corner him on those issues. But then again, what issue can you corner Ron on when he has shown that he is not a flip-flopper and that he bases his decisions based on the Constitution. But they tried anyway…and failed.

In what may have been a staged attack on Ron, Rudy Giuliani spoke out of turn against Ron when Ron answered the question, “Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?” From the transcript, we read:

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

To one Republican observer over at Cyclone Conservatives, he thought that:

At the same time, while I understand his foreign policy perspective and find some agreement in terms of nation building, I think he worded his answers poorly tonight and allowed him to be body slammed by Rudy on 9/11.

Assuming that he meant Rudy took apart Ron's statements, I replied:

Rudy never offered any counterargument to dismantle Ron's statements. Instead, he only offered up astonishment ("That's really an extraordinary statement"), misunderstanding ("we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq" - Ron never said anything about us "inviting" the attacks), and ignorance ("I don't think I've heard that before" - though James Ostrowski points out that two well-known reports have expressed the unintended consequences of our interventionist policies).

Yes, Rudy is truly ignorant of the idea of unintended consequences. The official 9/11 Commission Report had stated that the anti-American sentiment from the Middle East stems from our intervention and occupation over there. Is it really that hard to comprehend? Sadly, by the reaction of the audience and the slander against Ron in many articles and commentaries, it seems that America can do no wrong by being the policeman of the world. After all, we are spreading Pax Americana. There is no such thing as blowback when peace is the goal.

Despite the crowd’s approval of Rudy, it actually gave Ron the opportunity to speak the facts and lay out indirectly the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done to you. It was a dose of reality about what has been done and what we really should be doing. And what a doozy of a dose it was as the rest of the Nine wanted to reply to Ron. Too bad it didn’t happen. I’d love to see Ron give them a history lesson and the cause and effect of American hubris and hegemony.

The next debates are really going to be interesting now that the kid gloves are off and the brass knuckles are coming on. This assumes, of course, the powers-that-be don’t start axing candidates from the debates. They don’t like Ron. He won’t butter their bread. Even if polls show him to be in the top 3, they could care less about the people. Democracy needs to be spread abroad, but it surely cannot be practiced here.

But the debates aren’t the only things to look forward to since there is a lot of time in between. There will definitely be more traffic heading to Ron’s campaign site; mainstream media can no longer ignore him; the grassroots movement will continue to grow even bolder; and people will begin to ask the right questions as to the role of government. Too all supporters of Ron Paul: Be like Ron Paul and be prepared to answer!

Ron Paul Speaks In Ontario

This weekend I had the privilege to take my family to hear Dr Ron Paul speak at the Republican Convention in Ontario, Ca. It was my impression by the responses and Q&A that many in the room had never heard the man. But the continuous ovations throughout the speech (which covered a grand range of topics) showed a healthy support for him and his ideas. There was a dissenter or two in the room (how dare a republican oppose the war) and he did a good job of fielding the questions. But the overall response to him was resounding approval.

Earlier in this blog a commenter stated that Ron Paul's age, appearance and voice would pose a negative effect on his campaign. Well sir, his campaign and his following seemed incredibly strong and growing (the people we met there were eager and active in spreading the news of Ron Paul and his candidacy). He stood firm on the ideas of a constitutionaly limited government. He reinforced his belief in an economic market based upon competition and a gold/silver standard. He renounced our empirical policing of the world since WW2. He upheld personal responsibility in education. He voiced his support in the pursuit of Al Quaida (he even suggested a hired army might be better suited than our own military) but continued his opposition to our invasion of Iraq (since Congress still hasn't declared war). He supported guns in cockpits to defend our citizens. And he received ovations throughout.

I would say that anyone who thinks Ron Paul can't win because he's old, or has a "raspy" voice hasn't seen Ron Paul. It's true that he has an uphill battle ahead of him. The media continues to ignore him (yet they continue to follow Fred Thompson, who as of yet isn't running). His political adversaries disregard him. The Republican Party tries to keep him hidden. Yet with no help from media or his party, his campaign is growing strongly.

That's why we are here. We must be his media. We must push him into the forums of the public until all Americans have seen him and heard him. "Ron Paul won't be able to finance his campaign" is heard often. The assumption there is that he can't win as a grass roots candidate. That we can't build him up enough with the Internet, and word of mouth to outperform the multi-million dollar ad-campaigns. We must prove them wrong. And if what I saw this weekend is an indicator, our chances are more than fair.

Ron Paul doesn't need us to defend him, he does that quite well on his own. He only needs to have his voice heard. Than America can decide if he's worthy of our vote.

Overtime for Ron Paul

So far, this is the only comment I have seen recently (dated April 7, 2007) concerning Ron Paul's campaign funds:

His campaign is plugged into the Internet and well on its way to raising its first million.

The link to the article is here.

I am not sure if this is including the $500,000 that had been mentioned about a month ago.

A hundred here, a twenty there. A few tens and a few fifties. It all adds up. Pledge petitions are being proposed and this will help even more. I think, though, we are overlooking another possible avenue of funding: overtime.

As a grassroots movement, we certainly have plenty of people who will volunteer their free time to promote Ron Paul and spread the news of liberty. But some of that free time can be used for overtime at their place of work.

Let's say with 5000 people, each person works just 1 hour of overtime a week. If we take a lowball average of $8 an hour, then half that because of government rape (er, I mean overtaxation), then we arrive at 5000 x $4 = $20,000 a week of extra funding.

Now lets look at a more optimistic, yet a realistic possibility in number crunching.

With 10000 people working about 2 hours of overtime at a higher average of $10 an hour: 10000 x (0.5 x $10) = $50,000 a week of extra funding.

If you notice, I didn't calculate time and half for the OT, but I did this to show that even with just regular pay, money does accumulate quickly.

Play the numbers and see what a little bit of overtime can do for fundraising. Fifteen thousand people, maybe 50,000 or more, with only 1 to 2 hours of overtime a week, and maybe with a higher average wage, the campaign would certainly see a quick growth in funding.

So, to all those great people who are volunteering their free time to promote Ron Paul, don't forget to convert some of that free time to overtime!

Funded by Pareto's Principle

The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule, the law of the vital few and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many phenomena, 80% of the consequences stem from 20% of the causes.

An article I read a few weeks back, just before Ron Paul announced his bid for the presidency, said that if Ron Paul was to compete monetarily against the likes of Hillary, Barack, McCain and Giuliani, he would have to raise about $50 million. In other articles, $20 million would make other people take notice. Implied is that Ron Paul does not have the clout to compete, let alone make other people take notice.

As the grassroots movement continues to swell, Ron Paul no longer needs $20 million to make other people notice him. Already, he has been interviewed on CNN and Fox, the latter being prompted by hundreds of emails. An even greater step of notoriety will be his appearance tonight on Bill Maher's HBO show, Real Time with Bill Maher. Being so vastly different from the Republican clones, I wouldn't be all too surprised if Maher and his liberal following find favor with Constitutionalist Ron Paul. That would certainly raise the eyebrows of many. And let's not forget Nancy Reagan's personal invitation to Ron Paul to a presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library on May 3rd. Talk about being put out on the spotlight!

But would it be enough? Would there be enough people to help Ron Paul monetarily compete with the rest? Let's hypothesize for a moment.

When Ron Paul ran for president under the banner of the Libertarian Party in 1988, he received about 400,000 votes. Using Pareto's Principle, let's say 20% of the voters funded his campaign. That's 80,000 people. Let's say 20% of those were generous and, on the average, funded $100. 16,000 people X $100 = $1.16 million.

But let's break this down further. Twenty percent of 16,000 is 3,200. These would be people who were quite generous and, on the average, gave about $1000. 3,200 people X $1000 = $3.2 million. 16,000 - 3,200 = 12,800 of those who gave $100. 12,800 X $100 = $1.28 million.

Going back to the 80,000 who actually gave funds. 80,000 - 16,000 = 64,000 of those who gave, let's say, on average, $10 to the campaign. 64,000 X $10 = $640,000.

Let's tally it up. $3.2 million + $1.28 million + $640,000 = $5.12 million dollars. Ron Paul certainly falls short of the $50 million to "compete", but there is a law that can and will tip the balance in his favor: Murphy's Law.

In the current state of our government, it would seem Murphy's Law is the rule of law: Iraq, the economy, government encroachment of our liberties. Murphy's Law makes the powers-that-be all that more incompetent, and that is an incredible advantage that Ron Paul has. He is not perfect, and certainly no one is, but he far outshines all others like a freshly minted gold coin.

It will be this stark political contrast that Ron Paul offers that will negate Pareto's Principle. His political career and voting record will back his integrity. People are tired of the same old rhetoric from career politicians who promise gold and deliver mud. In their zeal to see a change in the government, I wouldn't be surprised to see more than 50% of them help fund his campaign. In their revolt of the Establishment, they'll give generously before it loses too much value to be worth the paper it is written on.

And as Ron Paul gains more exposure through his grassroots movement, the mainstream media will continue to buckle and will have to give him more news coverage. It's already started and it will continue on. I wouldn't be surprised if Ron Paul becomes "viral" on the internet. He had 400,000 people vote for him in 1988, but this time around, I think he'll be getting millions.

So what do I think this will look like monetarily? Just through the grassroots movement alone and without campaigning hard, he's already raised $500,000. That's 1 percent of the $50 million, and that's not even trying. And considering Ross Perot received 19 million of the popular vote, Ron Paul could easily get a quarter of that. So to calculate:

5 million x 20% = 1 million
1 million x 20% = 200,000
200,000 x 20% = 40,000

40,000 x $1000 = $40 million
160,000 x $100 = $11.6 million
800,000 x $10 = $8 million

Grand total = $59.6 million

And that, my friends, is a very conservative number.

Welcome to Ron Paulitics!

Hi and welcome to Ron Paulitics! In an effort to help campaign, this blog was created to promote Congressman Ron Paul’s bid for the presidency. We are but one of many grassroots upstarts that will endeavor to educate, discuss and debate as to why Ron Paul is suited to be the next president of the United States.

Topics will vary, including libertarianism, the free market, and the Constitution, all being the foundation of Ron Paul’s political views. And as Christians, we will also provide commentary on these subjects from a Christian point of view.

Everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, is welcome to participate. All we ask is to respect one another and put forth sound arguments. I am sure we will have some vigorous debate, but the aim for such discussions is to gain understanding, not to demean a person’s character.

It is our hope that this blog will give you a better insight into Ron Paul and his views, and that you will see that he is the best candidate for the presidency!