posted January 22, 2008
I do not write this by candlelight to pretend the year is 1776, but rather as an attempt to draw on the mood of our founding fathers as I consider the current state of affairs. This letter goes out to each person who is greatly concerned with the direction our great country is going.
In this momentous election year, with only 6.5% of the delegates decided, and with many primaries just around the corner, we do well for ourselves and our future generations to step back from the busyness of the moment, to thoughtfully consider, and then to make our voice heard.
I have discovered a candidate who truly loves this country, who consistently votes for the benefit of those he represents, and whose integrity is unmatched. While several other candidates are currently listed on the "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2007 list by Judicial Watch, you see a striking difference when you look at Dr. Ron Paul, who refuses to accept the congressional retirement program offered him because he has gone to Washington and remembered it is the people he represents who have to pay the bill for such things. Dr. Paul is the one candidate who consistently votes to reduce the tax-burden on hard-working Americans. While the other candidates promise more programs, Dr. Paul speaks out and votes against ever-increasing amounts of our paycheck going to the federal government, which tends to offer cookie-cutter solutions and includes more waste as it increases the layers of bureaucracy.
As for illegal immigration, again we see that Dr. Paul is guided by the principles that made this country great - freedom and opportunity, balanced with the rule of law. Dr. Paul makes sense when he says that you get more of something when you reward it. Therefore, in order to address this issue, we must secure the border, but we must also not have amnesty or birthright citizenship which motivate people to come illegally. For centuries, America has stood as a beacon of hope and a land of opportunity to the world; hope and opportunity that with hard work and ingenuity, one could enjoy the fruits of one's labor. But to systematically reward me with the fruits of your labor is ultimately de-motivating for both sides work ethic. Even where I thought it would be generous of me to help with my resources, it would be immoral for me to steal from you to "be generous" to others. Dr. Paul believes in motivating those that work hard by fair (lower) taxation, not in rewarding illegal behaviors by increased taking from the hard-working.
On matters of national defense, pretty much everyone agrees now that we went into Iraq on false pretense of threat to our safety as a nation. If we intended to invade to overthrow a cruel dictator, then we should have made it clear that was the mission, and we should have done it with well-laid plans for short-term military success and long-term stability and peace. I have the utmost respect and appreciation for each American who has enlisted to defend our country. But did not our founding fathers recognize the danger of absolute power corrupting absolutely when they carved checks and balances into our county's foundation? America needs a future president that is strong enough to resist the urge to take the power intended for congress to declare war. Following 9-11, when much of our countries leadership was pushing war, Dr. Paul voted in favor of going after the people involved in the attack, but was speaking out strongly in Congress against invading Iraq, who wasn't involved in 9-11. Isn't that what we need as a leader - someone with the foresight, clear thinking and wisdom to guide our nation in times of difficulty?
Similarly, a clear contrast can be seen between Dr. Paul and the other candidates in the recent discussion about Iran. While it appears that most of the candidates approach the discussion with the mentality of the local playground bully (with an arsenal of threats and intimidation), Dr. Paul speaks with wisdom, rather than more aggressive rhetoric that escalates the conflict. It greatly concerns me that some of these guys seem like they can't wait to get their hands on the "trigger button." When this country experiences a real external threat, we will have no shortage of volunteer troops to defend us. But with our troops spread so thin in police actions around the world, a draft is inevitable, and probably will be here soon with the current direction. The choice is ours: strength, wisdom and tact, or almost constant fighting.
It is worth noting that Dr. Paul comes to politics with a background as a physician, not as another lawyer. Our country needs a leader who can approach difficult issues to bring needed change toward good health for America, not special interests. Lobbyists pushing special interests go right past his door because he can't be bought. Another strong interest of his is the economy and monetary policy. He has studied these issues extensively, and I don't see any other candidate knowledgeable enough to debate with the fed chairman the short vs. long-term impact of the feds intervention and impact on the economy. Our economy cannot afford to have the leadership of this country anything less than well-studied on these and related issues.
Lastly, on the issue of electability, a Republican will win the Republican nomination, and that is for certain. But I would argue that the Republican Party would do itself no favor to bring to the November election another voice that echoes the same old thing you hear from the current administration. In fact, if our nominee sounds like they will offer four more years of the same, I will wonder if the Republican Party strategists were hijacked by the Democrats. Trouble on the economic home-front and trouble abroad plus four more years isn't exactly a recipe for success, no matter how unappealing the other options are. Meanwhile, Dr. Paul garners support from every spectrum of the political rainbow, not because he promises the government can give the pot of gold, but rather because he stands for hard-work, personal responsibility, freedom, and opportunity, within the rule of law. Isn't that what made us the envy of the world?
Yes, there is a lot at stake. The future is shaped by our actions now. If you want to vote for the status quo, there are plenty of others to choose from. But serious concerns on our shores and abroad require serious solutions to move us back in the right direction. With only less than 10% of the votes cast to determine the Republican nominee, let’s just go ahead and give the remaining 90% to the good doctor - representing Hope for America - Dr. Ron Paul.
David A. Shinn
Chattanooga
* * *
Your article on Ron Paul and his message is excellent. Thank you very much for explaining so clearly.
Brannon Parker
* * *
I just wanted to say that I appreciate David Shinn's article on Ron Paul, and I'm happy your paper is actually reporting on his campaign.
I hope you guys keep writing (favorably) about Ron Paul as the primaries heat up.
Louis Stillpass
* * *
Thank you so much for writing an informative and positive article and not calling Mr. Paul a nut for wanting better for our country. I enjoyed your article very much.
Thank you Mr. Editor for allowing such an article. I am sure you will get many more thanks today from Ron Paul supporters.
Nicole Bezik
Aurora, Il.
* * *
As a Republican of 40-plus years, resigning the Party in 2004 after seeing extremists' take over the beloved works of Lincoln and Taft, my decision was easy.
In 2004, it was my opinion the political hackers in the Republican Party would mount a major attack on the U.S. Constitution, and possibly bankrupt this nation. I was persuaded then, that these radicals (in collaboration with the apostate Democrat Party), would explode the federal budget and blow it off the radar screen. Also in 2004, I believed the two-party system had become, (in essence), a one-party juggernaut that was controlled by the financial industrial complex. Today, it seems my greatest fears are realized.
Consider for example the real purchasing power of the American dollar. Consider also how Democrat and Republican policies have taken this country to war without the U.S. Congress officially declaring war. By the way, I'm not so much anti-war as I am anti-congress for giving authority to the President to do whatsoever he pleases and when it pleases him. It’s appalling to see how the Congress abdicated its responsibility to declare war and mobilize the nation. No, it was easier for them to duck and say "Let George do it..." leaving them in the Pontius Pilate posture to criticize when the war went south and driving the American economy off its’ rails. It’s appalling also to see their disdain toward our most sacred document. And doubtless, their joint policies have indebted our children and grand-children to foreign banks. And just think, according to some newspaper account, many of these banks may be of communist’s origin. Now isn't that an oxymoron?
Republican and Democrat alike have turned the Congress of the United States on its head by allowing national and foreign lobbyist's to roam the hallowed halls of Congress intimidating, in my opinion, the few honorable representatives left to serve. In short, their policies have made our nation worse off and less safe. Oh yea, I know the standard rebuttal. "The President has kept us safe because we haven't had an attack on American soil since 9-11..." In response to that, I ask “Is there not more than one way to attack a nation?" Consider the value of the American dollar, your IRA and your 401. How much is the worth of your dollar at your local gas pump or local supermarket? Isn’t national and personal bankruptcy an attack? Consider also our nation's open borders and ports. Are they not vulnerable, still? Who knows what long range war-planning materials and supplies are coming through those wide-open gates?
And finally without pontificating, it seems to this writer that the current crop of Presidential candidates is a rehash of the past. Frankly, I exclude all of them except Dr. Ron Paul, and then only if he mounts a third party challenge. In my opinion he should mount that challenge. And frankly, should he lose in his effort, he is to be encouraged because his personal "moral base" is moored in the U.S. Constitution. And oh by the way, I make a distinction in the term "political moral base" as oppose to the "religious moral base" of the evangelicals. I’m not anti-religion, but the nation is multi-cultured. It’s imperative, I think, for the new President be anchored in the Constitution and not predisposed to a personal interpretation of the Bible. Dr. Ron Paul is tethered to the constitution.
Jack Dawsey
Salemburg, N.C.
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |