Dr. Weeks’ Comment: Last presidential election, I wrote in “Ron Paul” because I saw no significant option between the democrat and republican candidates. Both candidates seemed indebted to business and intended to serve a Corporatocracy rather than a Republic.
What is interesting is that today, even Obama’s greatest fans, those most excited at the prospect of “change”, are now scratching their heads.
Most people told me that they watched the presidential debates over a year ago – both republican and democrat events – and that they found them too staged to be interesting. However, people remember also that after every televised Republican debate, the viewing audience was polled and every time, the winner was a straight thinking, clear talking Congressman from Texas – Dr. Ron Paul (Ob/Gyn).
Yet he wasn’t “electable”.
And the reason he ultimately was “unelectable” was because the media (TV and print) NEVER covered his popularity the next day. It was like he never existed or he was some kind a freak show, a comic relief so instead, the media focused on the motley band whose true colors are now flying (think of the liar Edwards, consider McCain’s current bill banning nutritional supplements, and recall Mark Twain’s quotation: “There is no native criminal class in America except Congress”).
America missed a great opportunity to elect a genuine public servant, but today another opportunity exists: to clearly understand the path towards a more sustainable government and a more sustainable nation.
Now you can read carefully Ron Paul ‘s concrete suggestions on what real change we could have selected had we elected the doctor.
I appreciate my opportunity every election to vote my conscience. That is what I did last election. Once you read the following, please let me know if you don’t find yourself nodding your head in agreement and are not surprised and impressed. And perhaps even feeling a little sheepish.
My Plan for a Freedom President
How I would put the Constitution back in the Oval Office
Recently by Ron Paul: Bizarre Spending Habits
Since my 2008 campaign for the presidency, I have often been asked, “How would a constitutionalist president go about dismantling the welfare-warfare state and restoring a constitutional republic?” This is a very important question, because without a clear road map and set of priorities, such a president runs the risk of having his pro-freedom agenda stymied by the various vested interests that benefit from big government.
Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help – churches and private charities.
Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO’s of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.
No matter what the president wants to do, most major changes in government programs would require legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the election of a constitutionalist president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by a majority of the American public and would probably lead to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen and senators. Furthermore, some senators and representatives would become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda. Thus, even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional program in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain the necessary support in Congress.
Yet a pro-freedom president and his legislative allies could make tremendous progress simply by changing the terms of the negotiations that go on in Washington regarding the size and scope of government. Today, negotiations over legislation tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase. Their compromise is a 75 percent increase. With a president serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations on outlays would be between those who want to keep funding the government programs and those who want to eliminate them outright – thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease in spending!
While a president who strictly adheres to the Constitution would need the consent of Congress for very large changes in the size of government, such as shutting down cabinet departments, he could use his constitutional authority as head of the executive branch and as commander in chief to take several significant steps toward liberty on his own. The area where the modern chief executive has greatest ability to act unilaterally is in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority to declare wars, instead passing vague “authorization of force” bills that allow the president to send any number of troops to almost any part of the world. The legislature does not even effectively use its power of the purse to rein in the executive. Instead, Congress serves as little more than a rubber stamp for the president’s requests.
If the president has the power to order U.S. forces into combat on nothing more than his own say-so, then it stands to reason he can order troops home. Therefore, on the first day in office, a constitutionalist can begin the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He can also begin withdrawing troops from other areas of the world. The United States has over 300,000 troops stationed in more than 146 countries. Most if not all of these deployments bear little or no relationship to preserving the safety of the American people. For example, over 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. still maintains troops in Germany.
[TO CONTINUE, SEE THE EXCELLENT ARTICLE
at the thoughtful and thought-provoking webiste www.lewrockwell.com ]