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.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, August 31, 2007
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
God bless,
Victor
Friday, June 22, 2007
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
Ron Paulitics Store
Sunday, May 20, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
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!
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!
Sunday, April 22, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)