Why You Should Vote for Ron Paul and Not For Hillary or Obama
The Presidential race is turning the corner and preparing to enter the home stretch. Things are heating up and getting interesting. Senator McCain appears to have the Republican nomination sewn up, and Obama and Hillary are close for the Democrats, with Obama sticking his head ahead as they turn the corner headed down the stretch.
A lot can happen between here and the finish line, or not. Horse racing is like that. You put your money down and you take your chances, whether investing or that other game of chance - gambling.
It's all a form of gaming one way or the other. The only difference is that in one the stakes are higher, much higher - to both the players and the betters. One should place their bets accordingly.
This article is just my opinion as to why one should vote for Congressman Ron Paul for President. There has never been a better candidate running ever in the history of the election, which is obviously open to debate and argument.
Be that as it may, while I can, I choose to express my unalienable right to free speech, just in case it comes to pass that I no longer can, which is reason enough, all by itself.
Who's For What?
Congressman Ron Paul is for the Constitution, now there's a novel idea. Perhaps the other candidates should look into it and see if they agree with it or not; not to mention to catch up on just what the Supreme Law of the Land says is the Supreme Law of the Land.
I mean, it couldn't possibly hurt for the President of the country to know what the Constitution says. Who knows, it might even come in handy.
For instance, did you know that the Constitution mandates that only gold and silver coin is money? Honest, it says it so in several different places. It even says what cannot be money - it's called a disability, a grant of power the Constitution actually prohibits.
I will list them so there is no question as to what the Constitution states is the Supreme Law of the Land - the document the President takes an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend.
Presidential Oath of Office
The following can be found in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
So, what the heck - they've got to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, they might as well know what it says, so they are fully aware of just what it is they are supposed to preserve, protect and defend - correct?
If you listen to what Obama and Clinton say they will do as President, or what they don't mention to be on their to do list, you'll find that not much of it jibes with the Constitution, which is pretty incredible since they take the above oath of office.
Either they haven't read it, or they don't understand it, or they have forgotten it, or worse: they choose not to heed its call, which if true is a good reason not to vote for them. The reader can judge and decide for themselves.
Just remember - vote according to your judgment on the real issues, not the make believe ones they would have you believe. Appearance can be quite deceiving, while the Constitution clearly spells out the Supreme Law of the Land. Without a constitutional amendment, the Constitution takes precedence over all else.
The Supreme Court has ruled that all law must be in pursuance of the Constitution or it is not law - it is as if it had never been passed, and carries no legal and binding authority.
Constitution on Money
The money power is the greatest power that our country wields, even greater than the military power. Without money to pay for the military, there can be no military, not that we need one to go around the world conquering other nations and peoples.
However, we do need a standing army here to protect the homeland. But over 150 bases worldwide constitutes imperialistic overstretch, one that can cause great imbalances, expenses, and problems. Ask Rome, as they have experience in trying to conquer the world and where it leads, as does England in more recent times.
How many foreign military bases do we have in our country? Would we allow any? Then why should others allow us to set up shop on their national and sovereign turf?
It provides food for thought if nothing else. Remember recess in grade school and the playground bullies? Or Machiavelli when we got older and went to those higher places of education?
Right by might may rhyme, but it's an ancient song of lament that has worn quite thin with old age. It is time to replace the old gray horse.
Perhaps it is time nations grew and expanded their group consciousness; just as we strive to have our children grow up, mature and gain wisdom with age and experience. Knowledge is wasted if not put to good works.
It is the doing that matters, not the knowing. Knowing is only good if it produces good works. The proof is in the pudding as they say - not in the recipe.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power:
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures".
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. states:
"No State shall … coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."
According to the above two clauses of the Constitution, gold and silver coin are the only money that the Constitution mandates. Also, notice that Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 clearly states a disability that prohibits any State from emitting Bill of Credit, and accepting any thing but gold and silver coin as tender in payment of debt.
Yet that is not what our present monetary system is abiding by. There is no gold and silver coin circulating as the currency of the realm; but there are Federal Reserve Notes or paper dollar bills that pass as currency, which are expressly prohibited by the Constitution.
Why no other Presidential candidate besides Ron Paul mentions this and makes it one of the basic pillars of their platform strains human reason, especially considering that all Presidents take the oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
It leaves one wondering if the above clauses are considered to be part of the Constitution that is supposed to be preserved, protected, and defended. If they are, then why are they not upheld as the Supreme Law of the Land? Cui Bono?
The other day it was reported in the press that Hillary said (paraphrased) to Iran to take note that if she is President and they (Iran) attack Israel that the U.S. will retaliate and blow them off the face of the earth (something along those lines - pardon me if the paraphrase is off a bit, but you get the general idea).
Clinton on Good Morning America" was quoted as saying:
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," in a response to a question asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel.
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
I must have missed the part in the Constitution where we are supposed to protect or defend Israel. I thought the President's job is perserve, protect, and defend the Constitution - not Israel. Yes, yes I know that argument - it doesn't hold water; there is a hole in the bucket.
During one of the Presidential debates McCain had this to say on striking Iran without approval from Congress.
"If the situation is that it requires immediate action to ensure the security of the United States of America, that's what you take your oath to do. If it's a long series of build-ups, where the threat becomes greater and greater, of course you want to go to Congress. So it obviously depends on the scenario. And I believe that this is a possibility that is, maybe, closer to reality than we are discussing tonight."
I would love for someone to write a reply to this article and explain where I have gone wrong - on this direct issue, not another topic they wish to use to deflect attention away from the subject at hand.
On Free Trade
Free trade is a fascinating subject, not that it is practiced anywhere in the world - but it is a nice concept. I often wonder if free trade includes tariffs, and subsidies, and market intervention - the kind the Fed does with open market operations, or the IMF does by stating that no member nation can have a currency backed by gold. Why do they have that by-law?
Perhaps that is why our monetary policy does not use gold and silver coin mandated by the Constitution, which doesn't make it just or correct, but it is at least a lame excuse - at best. At worse it is - well I'll leave it up to the reader to decide.
Obama had the following to say on "free trade" with China to steelworkers in Philadelphia:
"If you are doing the right thing and not trying to manipulate your currencies to our disadvantage then you will have access."
"What we need to do is just be better bargainers and say 'Look, here's the bottom line: You guys keep on manipulating your currency, we are going to start shutting off access to some of our markets," he said.
Once again, perhaps I'm wrong, and I would love to hear someone explain this direct issue and correct my mistake; however, this smacks of protectionism, which is not free trade.
Also, doesn't the U.S. intervene in both domestic and national markets? What is the President's Working Group on Financial Markets for? What is the exchange stabilization fund for? Are there two sets of rule here, one for us and one for everybody else? Is this freedom and democracy or oligarchy?
Hillary wants "Universal health care", which is nothing but a euphemism for socialized health care - one that would be dictated by the government to the people. This is complete market intervention and manipulation that is the antithesis of free markets.
Where does the government get off telling the people what and how they should maintain health care? That is a personal and individual choice that should be left up to the people to decide.
Now, to help bring about affordable health care is a different matter, depending on how it is done. How should it be done, by leaving it to the free market to decide, but first we need free markets.
Ron Paul wants to bring all the troops back home to defend the homeland. The money that would no longer be wasted could be used to fight poverty that we have in our own country, or used to make health care more affordable, or a myriad of other good uses, other than to kill people so that the merchants of death can ply their trade for profit.
Do you think the military-industrial complex wants McCain or Hillary elected? Why - what would either candidate do for them? What's the biggest business in the world - that's right, it is war.
Ron Paul wants the monetary system to return to gold and silver coin as mandated by the Constitution. He also wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, which the Constitution does not grant the power to Congress to create and to then hand over the control of our monetary system to.
He is for doing away with unconstitutional legal tender laws that force the people into using what the government stipulates is money - paper fiat debt-money - bills of credit the Constitution prohibits.
Ron Paul is for smaller government, as in fewer expenses, which translates into lower taxes. He is for balanced budgets.
I could go on and on about policies that both Obama and Hillary espouse that are not in keeping with the Constitution. I could keep on listing issues that Congressman Ron Paul wants to address by returning to what the Constitution states is the Supreme Law of the Land. But there is no need; the above should suffice to get the idea across.
The bottom line why you should vote for Ron Paul, and not for Hillary or Obama, is that the only way change can be effected, is by not feeding the beast.
By voting for Ron Paul you are no longer feeding the beast, which will cause it to grow weaker. Think about it - long and hard. Read the Constitution and compare what the candidates talk about.
See what the real issues are. Determine who wants to follow the Constitution, and who doesn't know it exists. Then vote accordingly, if not for yourself - for your children and their children to come, for all the little ones yet to come. They inherit the world we leave behind.
Come visit our new website: Honest
Money Gold & Silver Report
New Book Coming in 2008 - Honest Money