Why the Chinese government wants you to vote Ron Paul

August 10, 2007

    How’s that for linking two huge issues in one title?  China is in the news constantly, and though it’s primarily event driven, people can’t help but notice that they have become a world player.  Ron Paul continues to languish far behind even the mid- tier candidates in the Republican race for the White House, but has made enough waves to achieve some level of interest outside the blogbowl.

    Ron Paul has a lot of ideas that on the surface look like winners for America.   He has stood for sound fiscal policies since his arrival in Washington.  To change this into an easily understood political term, he has been obstructionist.  This has created a situation that makes his run for the White House an excercise in futility.  It is unlikely that a grassroots campaign can give him the push he needs to become one of the heavy hitters in the race, and he will get no backing on the hill.  He has no allies….change that…he has few allies, and all of them have whacko credentials a mile long.  Even if elected,  it is inconceivable that he could lead our government because there is just no way that he could achieve concensus on any of the major issues facing our country.

   The Chinese would love to see it though.  Ron Paul’s free trade stance would make the deep water ports they are building in Mexico a cash cow when our Southern border becomes as porous for Chinese goods as it is currently for illegal immigrants.  Free Trade is the new Chinese mantra.  The use of slave labor, ignoring International environmental laws, and incredibly lax quality control standards on exported goods make them the world leader in death exportation, and they are doing it with an aplomb that would make Kruschev jealous.  Unchallenged by our current leaders, their trade practices would be encouraged by a Ron Paul administration.

   Ron Paul’s foreign policy stance is another good reason for the Chinese to salivate like Pavlov’s dog everytime they hear his name.  Based on his non-interventionist beliefs, the Chinese have to see a Ron Paul presidency as the final ingredient to reacquiring Taiwan.  A man who is unwilling to use the military outside our borders, (and no matter his rhetoric, thats exactly how he feels), can hardly be expected to honor mutual defense treaties signed by prior adminiistrations.  He feels they are a mistake, and in this case he may be right.  Other than its thorn in their side implications, Taiwan has no real strategic value to the United States.

     The Chinese hold nearly a trillion dollars worth of U.S. debt.  A return to the gold standard would not only make this a much more secure investment, but going forward would allow them to hammer us into the ground economically.  Yeah,we’re back to that idiotic free trade thing again.

   Ron Paul would ignore China’s record of human rights abuses, their continual dumping of dangerous goods on U.S. markets, and their now obvious efforts at imperialsm.  China is proving by their action that they are not just a dangerous competitor, but a completely rogue nation with designs on world domination.  Ron Paul  would be the perfect president in light of this.  If he were Bill Clinton they could even donate to his campaign.


Yesterdays Ron Paul post… pro/con

July 25, 2007

  I am posting this link to yesterdays post because Stanky was kind enough to come over and add explanations of Ron Paul’s issue stance.  He has a decidedly different view than I do, and I think it adds to the informational value of the post.

I do not agree with his position on several of these, but have to admit that his opinion on them is every bit as sensible as mine, even if we have a divergence of the minds on what Ron Pauls intentions are.   I’m not going to go through and repost this, so to get his take read his comments.  They are well formulated, thoughtful, and illuminating.

Thanks again stanky

https://criminyjicket.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/ron-pauls-issuesfrom-his-campaign-site-in-his-own-words/ 


Ron Paul’s issues…from his campaign site, in his own words

July 25, 2007

I’ll do these by the numbers.  So many have no real idea what he stands for, and one of my commenters wondered if knowing would change anything.  let me know if this changes your opinion of Ron Paul

1.  debt and taxes –  I think my issue here is that someone who wants free trade shouldn’t complain because other nations “buy a piece of the rock” so to speak.  I have read where he supports a consumption tax, but from my own reading, I have never seen him support that without constitutional strings attached.  He does want lower taxes…remember that for later.

2.  American Independence and sovereignty-  he is against U.S. troops being tried for war crimes by an International Criminal Court, he is against GATT NAFTA the WTO, and Cafta…so what free trade is he for?

in this one he also talks down the NAFTA superhighway which is planned along current I-69.  He also is trying to get funding to extend I-69 through Houston.  What the hey, if there is a NAFTA Superhighway he might as well be in on it.

this one is mystifying.  I don’t understand his stance on free trade at all?  Is he talking free international trade with no guidelines or restrictions? what about regulations determining the viability of the products being imported?  He is thin on this one.  He says this as a closing line:

“We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America”_Ron Paul (name added by author)

well, you have to give up something in any trade deal Ron.  What is allowed.  He is very vague on his webpage.

3. war and foreign policy.  No war without congressional declaration.  No foreign aid. no isolationism.  Open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy that pretty well sums it up.  What it doesn’t say is often times diplomacy hinges on foreign aid.  In other words, sometimes governments buy friends in the interest of the greater good.  I agree with the only declared wars line, but the rest of it is  simply from lollipops, gumdrops, and rainbow land.  do not isolate but do not intervene.  Do not give aid or intervene, but use diplomacy. open trade in a nation that heavily regulates its industry with nations that don’t? can you say burgeoning trade deficits, bunkie?  I’m sorry, other than declared wars, this whole block is irrational.  They really need to keep him on his meds.

4. life and liberty _this is the abortion one, folks.  He is against abortion.  No question.  He wants life to be considered to begin at conception.  He has authored legislation that will stop the federal government from intervening in state decisions to defend life…limiting Roe v. Wade.  He does not obfuscate like the pauliacs.  He comes right out and says what he wants , with utter clarity.  In a related issue there is also a lot of bold speak using clipped excerpts that show he supports stem cell research.  This is false.  He supports SOME stem cell research.  He does not and has never supported in any of his speeches embryonic stem cell research, the type scientists and medical experts believe to be the most valuable.  He is against federal funding for any of them.  Here’s a link before you go telling me how dumb I am.

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=178619&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

5.  Border security and immigration reform –  he has six bullet points…the most important thing, paying for it isn’t mentioned.  They include (I’ll give a link to the full text at the bottom of this article)  Physically secure our borders and coastlines (and I assume ports), enforce visa rules, no amnesty, no welfare for illegal aliens, end birthright citizenship, pass true immigration reform.  ok  Can we say huge Federal Government Bureaucracy? I’m talking massive expenditures just to secure the perimeter. then we need enough law enforcement types to deport 10 to 20 million people,  We need screeners everywhere to ensure sick illegal immigrants don’t get treated at hospitals or receive government services,  we need to change the constitution for our constitutional conservative, (I believe thats a 2/3rds vote which is never going to happen on this issue), and then we need to establish what I can only assume is a draconian immigration policy, because he complains about there being to many.  This would make the iraq war funding look like someone broke into a piggy bank.

6. privacy and personal liberty – self explanatory.  He wants utmost privacy, and no federal ID card.  He seems to want to abolish SSN as well, or at least curtail there usage.  My problem here is quite simply since the constitution does not gaurantee privacy, why is this one of his issues?

7.  Property rights and eminent domain –  This is one that everybody likes i’m sure, but think of what our highway system would be like if when interstates were being built in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s  eminent domain were not part of law?  Here is the fifth amendment…read the last line carefully

Main Index > Cases and Codes > U.S. Constitution > Fifth Amendment

U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment

Fifth Amendment – Rights of Persons

Amendment Text | Annotations  

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

I’m sorry…thats twice on his own campaign blog where the strongest voice for freedom and the only true constitutional government supporter bucks the constitution.  I didn’t write any of this stuff.  He did, or his staff did with his consent.  I’m not for the NAFTA superhighway, but understand that eminent domain and regulations to protect wetlands etc are crucial to the viability of our nation and our planet.

Ok, that’s all of it…now here is the link in case you think I’m lying.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

now you know what Ron Paul is about on the issues he found to be important enough to post on his campaign webpage…go read it, and let me know how you feel about him.  I’ll even delete your comment without posting it if you ask.   My curiousity is killing me.


Ron Paul;

July 18, 2007

  Howdy, bub.  How goes the race for the white house?  I have some questions, and no, I’m not one of your supporters so the same old schlock answers aren’t going to make me say “you go Ron” as I continue cleaning my bazooka.  You want to be president so that you can return us to liberty.  To the freedom our forefathers intended

1.  Your followers have me a little confused, and so do you.  Are you for states rights, or individual rights?  I ask because I don’t see the difference between having a state dictate to me what I can and can’t do versus the federal government doing that.

2.  Are you for or against gay rights?  you get a little uncomfortable it seems talking about it, but as a libertarian, don’t you think they should have the same individual liberties as everyone else?

3.  When you say “it’s not in the constitution” are you advocating a government that does only what is expressly permitted in the constitution, or for a federal government that does what is not proscribed by the constitution>  It may seem semantic, but it isn’t.

4.  when you advocate free trade, do you understand that countries like China use slave labor, and a host of other unfair business practices, and as president would you be willing to attach appropriate taxes and tariffs on the import of goods to ensure a level playing field for American industry?

5.  What would you consider justification for use of America’s military?  would it be enough for a foreign entity to attack U.S. citizens abroad, or would they actually have to attack U.S. soil?  Would you be willing to honor America’s longstanding mutual defense treaties with such nations as Taiwan?

6.  up until now, the government has known that cigarettes are a deadly product, and have chosen to tax them at incredibly high rates instead of making them illegal.  How do you feel about products known to cause death in a high percentage of their users being sold legally?  If you approve of the practice, do you consider it proper for the government to profit off the sales of such products?

7.  The gold standard or backing currency with gold has caused most experts to consider you a bit of an eccentric.  Do you feel it’s sensible for the U. S. Government to buy up trillions of dollars worth of a precious metal when our deficti is already alarmingly high?

8.  By placing the responsibility for governing so heavily on the states, it seems that the federal government would become a referee in disputes between the states and individual rights. Is that a sensible role for an advanced societies central government to be playing?  We are not living in the age of our forefathers, and in  fact it strikes me that for states to be controlling almost everything it would put the U.S. at a decided disadvantage when it comes to competing with other nations.

9.   If you could change only one thing by becoming president what would that one thing be?  Your underwear is not an option.

10.  Are you for the seperation of church and state being treated as the constitution intends, or for the watered down variety we see in use today?

Sincerely,

C. Jicket

founder of the Grape Party