ron paul

The conservatives attending this week's Conservative Political Action Conference are generally hawkish when it comes to foreign policy, but they applauded Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) on Friday when he told them the US has no choice but to get out of Iraq.

"Part of the reasons why we lost this last election was the foreign policy issue," Paul insisted. "Generally speaking, the presidential candidate who argues the case for less war-mongering will win the election."

Paul noted that George Bush ran in 2000 on a pledge to end Bill Clinton's nation-building, but then he "joined the idea that the American taxpayers -- you -- have an obligation to take care of everybody and police the world."

...

"So yeah," Paul acknowledged. "We want to get rid of a bad guy in Iraq -- we did. But ... another one million Iraqis got killed. Believe me, they weren't all terrorists. ... But nevertheless, it pleased Osama bin Laden."

Really, the war on terror is too expensive? We shouldn't have invaded Iraq because they had no WMDs? Christ, it took you this long to figure it out? Oh and Osama is still running around his mountain cave home laughing at us? And we've managed to give millions of people around the world some pretty legit reasons for hating us?

Way to go, the last eight years have been a complete waste of time.

I rise to introduce the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy. How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation.

...

Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight of its operations. While the conventional excuse is that this is intended to reduce the Fed's susceptibility to political pressures, the reality is that the Fed acts as a foil for the government. Whenever you question the Fed about the strength of the dollar, they will refer you to the Treasury, and vice versa. The Federal Reserve has, on the one hand, many of the privileges of government agencies, while retaining benefits of private organizations, such as being insulated from Freedom of Information Act requests.

Representatives of the major Democratic candidates accepted invitations to participate in a discussion of science in the next administration. Senator McCain's campaign sent their regrets that they could not attend on such short notice, while Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul did not respond to the invitation at all.

From Clinton's camp came Thomas Kalil, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Science and Technology at UC California Berkeley. He's also former Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Technology and Economic Policy and former Deputy Director of the White House National Economic Council. Obama sent Alec Ross, a social entrepreneur for One Economy Corporation which is a non-profit working to bring new technology to poor communities. I immediately noticed although Ross is the younger, more charismatic speaker, it's obvious he lacks experience and familiarization with science policy.

The good news is that both reps highlighted large increases in funding for basic research. Unfortunately, neither provided any practical blueprint for how this might be accomplished. Actually, at times the forum reminded me of a Jr. High School campaign speech--chock full of promises for more soda machines and longer lunch periods with no sense of how to follow through. Both sides criticized the Bush administration, but made little distinction between their science policy platforms.

On January 15th we asked you for tech-oriented questions we could send to the various presidential candidates, and you responded like mad. The candidates were the exact opposite: not a single one answered emails we sent to their "media inquiry" links or email addresses. Slashdot has more readers than all but a handful of major daily papers, so that's kind of strange. Maybe they figure our votes aren't worth much or that hardly any of us vote. In any case, the Ron Paul campaign finally responded, due to some string-pulling by a Slashdot reader who knows some of Ron Paul's Texas campaign people.

Voters who want more liberty and smaller government have only one realistic choice in the upcoming presidential race: Dr. Ron Paul. No other candidate comes close to matching his record. For more than three decades, he has consistently opposed spending, tax increases and burdensome regulation.

...

Paul's unilateral approach combined with his calls for a foreign policy of humility, prudence, and diplomacy stands in stark contrast to other candidates who vow to meddle in the foreign affairs of other countries through sanctions and military force. Paul, of course, is the only Republican to call for ending the embargo on Cuba. He insists that private property rights and free markets are the only answers for Latin America, but knows that by trying to force these principles, we only drive their people toward socialism.

...

Paul breaks completely from the others in monetary policy. His long-term goal is to phase out the Federal Reserve, which he compares to a price fixing agency. As recent events, such as the lending crisis, devaluation of the dollar and roller coaster on Wall Street have shown, the Fed is incapable of managing the money supply in a world of uncertainty and constant flux. Paul would follow the course recommended by Nobel prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek, fully legalizing competition in currencies as well as eliminating legal tender laws and capital gains taxes on gold coinage.

Paul is the most consistent champion of civil liberties in the presidential race. He voted against the PATRIOT Act and has fought against the Real ID, personal income tax and attacks on habeas corpus.

Oh, look, another newspaper writer is digging a deep hole to shove Robert Heinlein's reputation into, mostly by intimating that no one takes Heinlein seriously anymore anyway, trotting out a bookseller to intone about Heinlein being a fascist, and even hauling up the New York Times assessment of moi last year to wonder if being sized-up for the "New Heinlein" mantle is actually a compliment.

Uh-huh. Well, since I am, after all, the author who is the subject at hand for the NYT piece, I think I'm allowed to pipe up here and ask a question. Which is: If being compared to Heinlein is such a liability, then why am I selling so many goddamn books? Because you know what? I am. Ask my publisher, he'll tell you the same thing.

...

Beyond this point, science fiction has a long and proud tradition of irascible loners with contrary politics, and there are more of them than you think. I doubt there's a single Ron Paul supporter in the land who doesn't have a well-thumbed copy of either Farnham's Freehold or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress or both. Being politically incorrect is not actually a liability in science fiction.

Not necessarily a Ron Paul supporter, but I find him interesting. And I just finished The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and now Allie is reading it.

Republican candidate Ron Paul is on Meet the Press. (live-blog)

He wants to get rid of the IRS and income tax. We could save hundreds of millions if we had a sensible foreign policy. The goal is to cut spending.

We should bring our troops home and save hundreds of millions of dollars. We don't need to be starting wars or to be the policemen of the world. We can defend this country without troops in Germany, Japan and other places.

Presidents don't have the authority to declare war. Only Congress can declare war.

What if Iran invades Israel? They aren't going to, that's like asking what if Iran invaded Mars.