He stands by his principles

Ron Paul was a practicing OB/GYN for many years and has delivered over 4,000 babies. He has never accepted payments from Medicaid, instead offering discounted or pro-bono services to his patients in need.

Ron Paul has five children, all of whom attended college. He did not allow them to take out federally backed student loans.

Ron Paul has served ten terms in the House of Representatives. He has never participated in the pension program for Representatives, saving taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Ron Paul's Congressional office returns a portion of its budget to the U.S. Treasury every year.

He has a long history of forgoing significant personal gain in order to follow his principles. This is the type of man I would like to see as President of my country.

The question of Israel

I emailed my rabbi asking his opinion on Ron Paul and Israel. My rabbi was kind enough to reply. For him, Paul's non-interventionist position toward Israel was a deal breaker, although he acknowledged there are other issues important to Jews when voting.

For myself, I do not see Paul's position toward Israel as something I disagree with but will put up with because of other strong points. Rather, Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy is one of the big reasons I like him, and that includes its application to Israel. Here's a summary of my rabbi's arguments for the U.S. giving preferential treatment to Israel, and my own reasons for disagreeing:

Non-interventionism is not always the right policy
Even before Pearl Harbor prompted the U.S. to enter its own military into WWII, we supported our ally Britain against Nazi Germany. Pearl Harbor was in part prompted by our economic sanctions of Japan opposing their side in the war. And the Holocaust was certainly something where intervention was the right thing to do.

However, we are currently not facing anything like the Holocaust - except in Sudan, where our current interventionist government is not doing anything anyway. (If you're not familiar with the horrors that have occured in the Darfur region of Sudan the past few years, I encourage you to read some of the resources offered at Save Darfur.) In the world today, absent a candidate willing to send military force into Sudan, non-interventionism is the best policy for the United States.

Israel is one of the most committed allies to the United States
They like our money and the implication of our military protecting their interests in the region, sure, and will use whatever influence they have to support the U.S.'s interests in return. However, I'm not impressed with the influence Israel has in international politics. If anything, the international community's negative opinion of Israel is spread to the United States because of our strong relationship, actually weakening America's position in defending our own interests.

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East
If America wants to promote democracy around the world, my rabbi argues we should support countries that are democracies. That's a nice sentiment, but the truth is Israel's form of government has nothing to do with our support for them. The influential neoconservative movement believes we need to put our military bases all around the world anywhere anyone will let us - especially in the Middle East which has all that oil the neoconservatives believe we can't live without. Many evangelical Christians, also an influential group in America, believe the existence of the State of Israel is necessary to set the stage for the Second Coming of Jesus. Combined, the influence of these two groups mean the U.S. would support Israel even if it were a bloody dictatorship.

Supporting Israel as a democracy while supporting an oppressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia and using the CIA to install a dictator in Iran (overthrowing a democratically elected government in the process) is not a way to spread democracy. The U.S. breaks everything it touches when it comes to international intervention. We need to start spreading our values by example, not at the point of a gun.

Withdrawing U.S. monetary support for Israel would be a death sentence for that country
Israel has peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, two important neighbors. Israel has one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the world. Israel has nuclear bombs. I do not believe losing a few billion dollars a year would cause a state with a GDP of $170 billion to collapse. Operating without that support would actually free Israel to pursue its own interests, rather than feeling forced to toe the U.S. line - a line at least some Zionists are not happy about.

Withdrawal of U.S. support for Israel would cause WWIII
Israel has nuclear bombs and, my rabbi believes, would be more likely to use them if it were not assured of U.S. military support. I think it equally likely that Israel would use nuclear bombs because it believed the U.S. would help it avoid the consequences. Because I believe these two situations have the same probability, if WWIII is going to happen, I would really rather not be the ally of the country that starts it.

Paul's assertion that the Israel lobby has undue influence in Washington is anti-Semitic
Paul is not criticizing the Jewish people and never has. He is a strong critic of the neoconservative movement, and that includes their interventionist position toward Israel. This is in no way, shape, or form antisemitism. More details on Paul's record regarding Israel can be found in this Haaretz article.

One of the beefs anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists have is the perceived out of proportion influence the Jewish people have in U.S. policy toward Israel. How could 1.4% of the population cause the U.S. to commit so many resources to a small country halfway around the world? Truth is, they don't. It's the neoconservatives and certain evangelical Christians driving U.S. policy toward Israel. But because they funnel their support through Jewish lobby agencies, they give the appearance of the Jews calling the shots and actually drive the growth of these hate groups. Removing the appearance of undue Jewish influence would force these groups to resort to less facially plausible excuses for their hate.

Jews need a place where they will always be safe.
During the Holocaust, Jews had no place to flee. A Jewish State would always be a refuge against future persecution. Genocide is not unique to the Jewish people, however. Even in the past century, we have had the Armenian genocide, the Khmer Rouge, the Holodomor, and I'm sure others I can't list off the top of my head. None of those other groups got their own state separate from that of their oppressors.

I live in a country that values separation of Church and State. The U.S. is majority Christian, but if I follow my partner's Jewish faith the government treats me no differently. If I adopt a child internationally, I would be under no pressure to convert that child to Christianity. But if an Israeli couple adopts internationally, they have to convert that child to Orthodox Judaism to have it gain Israeli citizenship.

I'm glad I don't live in a country that identifies itself with a particular religion, therefore I don't feel compelled to support Israel in identifying itself with Judaism. I support the right of the Israeli people to self-determination, I just don't want the U.S. government to be enforce its view of how Israel should be on that region.

My own view: even from the perspective of an American Jew, Ron Paul is the best choice to lead America.

A big tent

A comment by "Steve" on this LA Times article summarized one of my great hopes for a Ron Paul Presidency:

I have never seen so many people from all sections of our society come together for a common cause before like I see with the Ron Paul movement. In my meetup group there are doctors, lawyers, cooks, nurses, teachers, bus drivers, highway patrolman, 2 electricians, a WW2 vet and several Vietnam vets. Rich poor, young and old are coming together under the banner of freedom, it's the American way.

When I search Google News for "Ron Paul" recently, I see overwhelmingly positive coverage - most of it from people who disagree with his positions. I believe a majority of Americans agree with Paul's positions. Although he is not well-known enough (yet) to test this belief, the success of his meme is supporting evidence. More profoundly, I believe that the vast majority of Americans can respect Paul as a leader and be proud of America with Paul as head-of-state.

Isn't a united America, in all its diversity, a vision worth working for? To me, it's a vision worth voting for.

Top-down vs. bottom-up

Historically, attempts at top-down political change have been short lived. A recent example is the Reform Party of Ross Perot. Galvanized by Perot's campaign for President in 1992, supporters created the Reform Party and fielded candidates in all fifty states in 1996. In 1998, the Reform candidate Jesse Ventura won election as governor of Minnesota - the highest office held by a "third" party in a hundred years. And then the party basically collapsed, fielding only a handful of candidates in each election since.

People who desire long-lasting change are advised instead to start at the local level. Field candidates for local office, it is said, build up support for the platform, and then there will be established infrastructure to gain support in national elections for decades to come. There appear to be two major problems with this advice. First, through the history of the United States, the only third party to be successful with this strategy was the Republican party (the party was founded in 1854, its candidate Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860). Second, the federal government is so powerful now that platforms for change may take issue only with federal policies and programs. Local officials cannot effect change in these areas.

Ron Paul's Presidential candidacy offers a different approach: change an established party from within. Many journalists have written about how the Republican party has lost its way. It would be difficult to find a more diverse group of candidates than that found on the Republican slate. The party is looking for a strong leader in a new direction, and if they want, Ron Paul is ready to lead us there.

He respects the political process

Like all serious contenders for the nomination, Ron Paul has positions on many issues. His foreign policy and belief in the need for balanced budget are priorities, and he also has a long history of working on health care, tax reform, and immigration issues. But unlike the other candidates, many of Paul's positions are outside the mainstream political discourse. He disagrees with so many bills presented to Congress he is known by his colleagues as "Dr. No."

Some have argued that a Paul Presidency would bring the federal government to a standstill as he vetoed every bill he disagreed with (probably most of them). A commentor here suggested:

My best guess is that President Paul would use the veto power to force Congress to conform to the Constitutional scope of government.

Any President could force Congress to reconsider the size of the federal government by vetoing spending budgets until lack of funds forced a Dept to stop operation.

However, Paul's record shows that speculation could not be further from the truth. While in a campaign advertisement Paul promised to veto any unbalanced budget, his past actions show a deep respect for the bills passed by Congress. A few specific examples I've come across:

• When Congress debated making flag burning illegal (which Paul opposes), he pointed out that the proposed bill was unconstitutional. To help his colleagues, Paul proposed a Constitutional amendment that would allow their bill. Even on an issue he opposed, he wanted any Congressional bill that passed to hold up to court challenges.
• Ron Paul has stated:

  If we have a healthy economy, I think we could be very generous on work programs. People come in, fulfill their role and go back home.
  
  I’m not worried about legal immigration. I think we would even have more if we had a healthy economy.

  Paul has voted to expand guest worker programs and his campaign website calls current immigration policy "incoherent and unfair." But he opposes amnesty, which retroactively ignores laws Congress has passed. If Congress passes a law, that law should be enforced. If the country disagrees with the law, it should be repealed - not ignored.

More broadly, Paul has worked in Congress for twenty years: introducing and voting on bills, talking to his colleagues, talking to his constituents, and in general using our political system the way it was designed to work. It is important to Paul not to impose his will on the American people, but to talk to them and, as they become convinced on each point, work through Congress to enact legislation. Paul has filed to run for his 11th Congressional term in the 2008 elections, indicating his willingness to continue advancing his positions as a Congressman. While he is a long shot (possible, just not the most likely) to win first place in the Presidential primaries, a strong showing will certainly increase his influence in the House.

Also reflect on Paul's ten terms in Congress: his constituents have elected him ten times. People do not vote for someone to represent them if he gets nothing done. If a final budget bill is unbalanced, Paul will vote against it. But when House committees set budgets, Paul will earmark some of the budgeted money for programs in his district (earmarks do not increase the budget for federal programs - they direct the programs to use some of the already-budgeted money in specific ways.) Paul has been working in Congress for decades. He has proved he believes in working within the system toward his goals, and accepts that the slower pace of this method means he will not live to see many of them realized.

Paul believes in a balance of powers between the three branches of government, and strongly disapproves of the power-grabbing Bush has done. A Paul Presidency would have a domestic policy in line with his foreign policy: engage in diplomacy, make deals, and do not impose your will on the American people by force.

Why I'll Vote for Ron Paul: 5 Reasons

This post is in response to a meme successwarrior suggested on Daily Paul. His response is here.

Since this entire blog is a very long essay on why I will vote for Ron Paul, I'll make this post a summary version, and emphasize the points most important to me.

1. Ron Paul would balance our budget.
When a household budget is not balanced, they run up credit debt. Generally, a household can continue going deeper into debt for many years without serious effect. But for a saddening number of people, the debt payments become overwhelming and they may lose their house, be refused medical care, and any number of other devastating consequences.

When a country's budget is not balanced, it runs up credit debt. Our country's debt currently amounts to $30,000 for each man, woman, and child in the United States. We have been running up this debt for decades without serious effect. But now our interest payments alone are $217 billion per year - that's 8% of the total budget. Almost 1 in 10 tax dollars pays not for any government service, or even bureaucratic waste, but for interest on the debt. This is becoming overwhelming, and continuing on this path - as almost all other candidates propose - will have devastating consequences.

2. Ron Paul would make us safer.
Ron Paul supports peace-promoting diplomacy between governments and economic ties between countries. He opposes spreading our military ability thin in attempts to further U.S. policy - which compromises the military's ability to respond to true threats to our security and spreads the "hate America" meme.

3. Ron Paul would be a President to all America.
When 49% of Americans voted against him, President Bush saw a mandate to forge ahead with an unmodified agenda. By contrast, Paul values national consensus-building as expressed through America's Congressional representatives. Ron Paul's agenda is very wide, but his presidential platform consists of only two things: balance the budget, and withdraw troops from Iraq as quickly as the military believes reasonable (Paul suggested within six months). Everything else he would promote and lobby for, but ultimately respect the decisions of Congress. Not only would this foster political goodwill from both parties in Washington, I believe it would result in a more productive government. Paul did not get elected to Congress ten times by not getting anything done!

4. Local governments are more accountable.
Higher levels of government are more likely to abuse power. While many candidates promise to reverse the abuses of power committed by the current administration, only Paul proposes reducing the power held by the federal government. Should Paul be elected I believe there would be the national and political will to pass measures supporting a portion of his agenda, and also any Supreme Court justices he appointed would have a narrow interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's Article I, Section 8. I believe that is the only effective long-term solution: as long as the current levels of power go unchecked, the path to Big Brother's creation is uncomfortably clear.

5. A vote for Paul will advance his agenda within our political system.
While I believe a Ron Paul Presidency is a real possibility, I understand the more likely outcome is some other candidate receiving the Republican nomination. But even in that case, every vote for Paul will have a positive effect on the direction our country is going. Paul is a respected member of Congress, and the more people that vote for him in the primaries, the more traction he will have on Capital Hill and within the Republican party.

Global warming and the environment

Ron Paul has stated that he's not convinced global warming is caused by humans. Paul also has some unconventional ideas for improving the environment:

Pollution as property rights violation
Ron Paul is a strong advocate for property rights, and this includes the right to not have your property polluted. His definition of property rights violation includes contamination of water supplies, wafting smoke, and particulate matter, trespasses that have only in recent decades been recognized as property rights violations by the U.S. court system. Paul supports making it easier for regular Americans to successfully sue polluters through the courts, instead of having to be reliant on the federal bureaucracy to stop the pollution. He does not support a return to the environmental conditions of the industrial revolution, and strongly criticizes the governments of that time for allowing such pollution to occur. (More on this topic at Grist that I found via Green Piece Blog)

Local activism
There is a perception that it is the federal government's responsibility to handle all environmental issues. So if a person wants to make a difference in the environment, they have to be able to influence the federal bureaucracy. How intimidating! Ron Paul believes less federal intervention would encourage local programs - which are much more accessible to people who care about the environment. In his interview with Grist (linked above), Paul cites the cleanup of industrial pollution done by the city government of Pittsburgh as the model he would like the rest of the country to follow.

Paul's model is to enable people to better fight pollution that affects them, and emphasizes local government over federal government. Because he votes against environment regulation at the federal level (he believes it serves only the politically well-connected, not the average person), Paul scores poorly with environmental watchdog groups - 5% from the League of Conservation Voters (this stat from OnTheIssues). But discussing the merits of the approach is just an academic exercise: implementing this vision is not part of Paul's goals as President (in the unlikely event of his election). As he told Grist, "I'm trying to stop the war, and bring back a sound economy, and solve the financial crises, and balance the budget." That's plenty to fill up a four-year term in office.

There are ways a Paul presidency would definitely help the environment, however:

Hemp
25% of the world's insecticides are applied to cotton crops, and the U.S. is a major world producer of cotton. Industrial hemp, a cousin to marijuana, is also known as "weed" because it grows so easily with no insecticide applications. Growing industrial hemp is currently illegal in the United States. Ron Paul supports removing the regulatory barriers to this environmentally-friendly alternative to cotton.

Eliminating oil subsidies
Oil companies are taxed at a lower rate than other corporations. The U.S. Department of Energy does research and development for oil companies at taxpayer expense. And other tactics are employed to help oil companies - Earth Track goes into more detail. These subsidies have the effect of making alternative energy sources artificially uncompetitive.

The federal government has attempted to compensate for preferential treatment of the oil industry by subsidizing ethanol - which is only one of many potential alternatives to oil. Wouldn't it be easier to figure out the most economical energy alternatives if the market weren't clouded with complex and competing government subsidies? Ron Paul supports this leveling of the playing field.

Forcing consumers to pay the true, unsubsidized price of oil would lower demand. Lower consumption of oil is the best way to fight global warming.

Military energy use
Ron Paul supports using our military to protect America - he supported the war in Afghanistan to overthrow the state supporters of Osama bin Laden.

But the U.S.'s attempts to spread its ideals at gunpoint are huge wastes of our energy resources. The military-industrial complex benefits at the expense of the country as a whole. The huge amount of oil consumed in the war in Iraq, and our military presence around the world, drives up the price of oil. Because oil is a non-renewable resource, long term oil prices are only going to go up. But a Paul presidency would stop military wastage, slow down the depletion of oil reserves, and give the market more time to implement alternatives.

Marriage

The government of the United States currently defines marriage: States issue "marriage licenses" and the federal government uses these certificates of marriage to determine, for example, how federal taxes are calculated.

But for many Americans, marriage constitutes something different than what the government recognizes. The Catholic Church, for example, considers marriage a sacrament that cannot be undone by divorce. Orthodox Jews believe that a cohen cannot marry a non-Jew or a divorced woman, and that children of such a union are mamzers. And yet, our government is perfectly willing to declare such a couple married, in defiance of the Jewish halacha. Similarly, it places no obstacles in the path of a Catholic couple seeking divorce.

Holding the government to be an authority in determining which religions have the "correct" definition of marriage is, to me, the wrong way to go about things. Recognition of the validity of a marriage is best handled by individuals, their families, and their religious communities: not the government. Ron Paul is the only candidate who supports government recognizing contracts between individuals - meaning, allowing two people to place themselves under the laws affecting property, taxes, etc. that current apply to married couples - but to not define marriage. I believe this would result in more respect for both the American government and for the faiths of our citizens, and I am grateful there is a candidate I can support on this issue.

He's catching on - why now?

MSNBC recently reported on a Ron Paul rally. One of the things Ron Paul said at that rally was:

I’ve been used to delivering a message very similar to what I’m delivering tonight for many, many years and not getting a whole lot of responses. And all of a sudden, there’s a whole generation of people now very excited about hearing about the message of freedom.

He is speaking the absolute truth. People are becoming increasingly enthusiastic, and Paul's message is spreading as a meme. One of my partner's coworkers passed out Ron Paul literature to adults who came trick-or-treating last night. One of my coworkers is getting registered to vote for the first time in a long time - for Paul. While my partner and I better fit the stereotypical "young" demographic of Paul supporters (28 and 25, respectively), both these men are middle-aged. Supporters of Paul vote disproportionately in polls, and not just on the internet - he has won both the text-in polls Fox had after the last two debates. In internet forums, supporters of Paul post disproportionately about him (annoyed managers at RedState, an internet community of conservatives, recently banned members from talking about Paul). People who support him are excited, and they share their excitement!

And yet, Paul has been delivering this message for decades. I've watched videos of him filmed in the 1980s: while he looked younger then, his voice was the same, and he was saying the exact same things. He got 0.5% of the vote when he ran for U.S. President in 1988. In New Hampshire, he's currently polling at 7.4% (PDF of poll results). Why now?

I believe our current political situation has made it obvious, in a way it never was before, why Paul is right. Our federal government is abusing its power by misleading and bullying the American people into accepting an out of control deficit, engaging in foreign wars, and allowing our Constitutional rights to be trampled. State governments, facing the same domestic threats, are conspicuously not engaging in these behaviors, and a few states have even condemned these actions by the federal government. To prevent future abuse, we need a drastically smaller federal government, and a larger role for the States. Republicans and Democrats want to use the federal government to enforce their social values on the rest of the country. Only Paul wants to let the people in each State make these decisions.

Our consumerist society has encouraged people to take on debt they cannot handle: the huge number of foreclosures on sub-prime mortgages is hurting the entire economy. Our consumerist society has encouraged its federal government to take on debt it cannot handle: investors are losing interest in the U.S. market, and it shows in the falling price of the dollar. We're headed in the direction of not being able to finance the deficit - and then which bills do we default on? The Social Security pensions? The soldier's paychecks? It's a scary thought, and one I do not want our country to have to face. Only Paul seems to understand the importance of ending the credit addiction - he has promised that a Paul Presidency would veto every unbalanced budget. His Congressional voting record supports this: he has voted 'no' on every unbalanced budget that has come up during his ten terms in office.

Our country was prosperous and respected throughout the world when Paul ran for President in 1988. We did not seem to need his prescription at that time. Now, we are entering a recession of our own making and our head of state - the person who embodies our national values - is very likely the most hated person in the world. The United States needs medicine. And Ron Paul's prescription is catching on.

Local control - abortion

For many of the powers Paul supports removing from the federal government, he supports increased power at the state and local level. Education, for example, has traditionally been both funded by locally leveled taxes, and controlled by local boards elected largely by people involved with children who go to school in the area. The federal Department of Education has increasingly offered more federal money to schools - while imposing more bureaucracy on them. Such as the couterproductive No Child Left Behind Act. While federal money somewhat helps poor states at the expense of rich states (that kinda sounds good), I believe the value lost by reducing local control is too much. I support the Paul's position that the federal Department of Education should be dismantled, which would require increased educational activity at the state and local levels of governments.

A hot-button issue to which Paul applies this principle of local control is abortion. The famous court case Roe v. Wade first involved the federal government in abortion - prior to that, only states had passed laws on the procedure (or not - in a few states, abortion has never been addressed by state law (making it by default legal) for the entire history of the United States). The current position of most groups that support the continuing legality of abortion (such as Planned Parenthood) is to attempt to maintain a Supreme Court that will uphold the Roe v. Wade and related decisions. The current position of most groups that oppose the legality of abortion is to amend the United States Constitution to allow the federal government to ban all abortions (or with very limited exceptions such as life of the woman and rapes that were reported to the police within a certain time of the rape), throughout the country.

But most Americans do not entirely subscribe to either of these. Most Americans (as far as I can tell reading the polls) believe early abortions are undesirable but should be available, while late abortions should be prevented in all but the most extreme cases. Exactly where the dividing line between early and late abortions falls, and in what cases late abortion should be allowed are highly controversial. But almost never debated, because the Supreme Court has hamstrung state's ability to act on these issues:

• Only the vague characteristic 'viability' can be used to determine when abortion can be severely restricted or banned, and the physician performing the abortion has to be the one determining whether the fetus is viable or not.
• Cut-off dates are not allowed - not 20 weeks, not 27 weeks, not 35 weeks. Only the physician's (the one performing the abortion) personal judgment of viability.
• Requiring the opinion of a second physician on viability has been forbidden by the Supreme Court. This despite the fact that all abortions done for serious health reasons of the mother or fetus invariably have involved multiple doctors to confirm the diagnosis. Only elective abortions involve only one physician.

Abortion has become one of the most divisive issues in America. I believe this is largely because the federal government becoming involved in the issue has made it an all-or-nothing proposition. Ron Paul supports overturning Roe v. Wade - and then preventing the federal government from any further involvement in the issue (he is the only candidate from either party who holds this position.) Let the state legislatures act out the will of their constituents. Let the discussion of the middle ground on the abortion issue displace the pro-elective-abortion-for-nine-months vs. pro-life-from-fertilization screaming match that has raged in our country for so long. A strong showing of Ron Paul's campaign would, I believe, help start our country on a healing path on this and so many other issues - healing our country desperately needs.

Note, this is my personal take on the effect of Paul's policies. Paul's personal beliefs are staunchly pro-life, and he feels strongly enough about the issue to have written two books on the subject: Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue and Abortion and Liberty.

Intelligence gathering

One of the things that really cemented my support for Ron Paul was his stance on intelligence gathering, and how government intelligence activities affect civil liberties. This would not have influenced me four years ago. I live in America, the land of the free. I sometimes disagreed with our leaders on issues of civil liberties in principle, sure. But I never felt the leader's positions on those issues would directly impact large numbers of people. Civil liberties were not a deciding issue for me when voting, and even after Bush's first term I believed Congress would curb his most damaging erosions of the rights outlined in the Constitution.

Damaging erosions, such as wiretapping Americans - without a warrant. The standards for obtaining a warrant are very low - I had a professor who worked in criminal law for a few years and he had never seen a judge refuse to issue a requested warrant. What kind of fishing expeditions are law enforcement officials going on that they can't even put together cases for suspecting a person of wrongdoing?

There are so many other ways the current administration has stolen American freedoms people have written books on the subject. Worse - Congress is unable or unwilling to object to these actions. The past few years have seen me grow more and more scared of my own government.

There are a number of candidates who strongly object to compromising civil liberties in the name of intelligence gathering. But I feel Ron Paul's approach is the best. Other candidates would use government bureaucracy in a way that would generate high-quality intelligence while respecting the rights enumerated in the Constitution. Paul would advocate for Congress to slash government agencies and remove their ability to violate the Constitution for the foreseeable future. Bush's predecessors had no agendas to push the boundaries of the Bill of Rights - how was he able to do so much damage so quickly? Because the bureaucracy was already there.

How to remove this bureaucracy? One at a time. For example, take away the operations wing of the CIA - the wing that has again and again produced blowback that harms American security. Remove its layers of secrecy that allow one man - the President - to lead all our elected officials astray. Turn it back into an intelligence agency that provides information for ALL our leaders - that does not pander to one man, that does not perform damaging operations in foreign nations. And save a bunch of your federal tax dollars - that are currently being spent to make you less safe. Only Paul advocates this, and I believe this is the medicine our nation needs.

A Secure America

All the candidates for president have their plans for making America more secure. One of the first things about Ron Paul that caught my attention was his emphasis on blowback when he explains his foreign policy views. Blowback is the term the CIA uses to describe unintended consequences of our foreign policies. For example:

• The United States armed and gave battle training to Osama bin Laden. The intent of this training of bin Laden (along with many other people) was to send them to fight Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Twenty-three years later, he used this training to mastermind the World Trade Center attacks of 9/11.
• Iran had a democratically elected leader named Mohammed Mosaddeq. The CIA's conducted a military operation and removed him from power. A short-term blowback was the Iran Hostage Crisis, where outrage at the U.S.-installed government was cited as a major motivation for the hostage taking. A longer-term blowback is the complete refusal of Iran to engage with the Western nations on their nuclear program. More broadly, Operation Ajax was one of the first major contributors to an unstable Middle East where the populace hates the United States.
  

These are more major examples of blowback, but they are not the only ones. Ron Paul's message is that spreading democracy at the point of a gun makes America less secure. Our unwelcome military presence in other countries invariably results in unforeseen negative consequences. Long term security can only be achieved through open communication with other governments, and by setting an example other countries will want to emulate.

Hearing about Paul

Ron Paul is described in many news articles as an internet phenomenon. I did not hear about him on the internet, however. I first heard of Paul from my husband - who learned about him through the internet.

Our household that does not subscribe to any print newspaper, and only sometimes watches TV (and not news at that). It is natural that we have gathered more information about Paul the same way we receive almost all of our news - on the internet.

And boy, have we been excited by what we have learned.