Kathryn DeLong

Should guns be banned from college campuses because of alcohol and drugs?

2012-02-25T10:34:00.003-05:00

New articles at Human Events

2012-02-07T22:20:00.000-05:00

I have been a periodic contributor to Human Events since May 2011, but I will be reporting regularly now.

Check out my latest two articles:

Pastor: Starbucks Hates God
Starbucks has come out in support of same-sex marriage in Washington State, and the religious right isn't too happy about it.

Paul AWOL: Two-time CPAC straw poll winner elsewhere
Clearing the air regarding Ron Paul's absence from CPAC this year

Are all Ron Paul supporters potheads?

2012-02-03T14:28:00.000-05:00

The short answer is “No, of course not.” But that’s not convincing enough. So when all else fails, use logic.

I am going to dispel the myth that “all Ron Paul supporters are potheads” in 50 words.

People argue that if you support a candidate who wants to legalize marijuana, it must mean that you use marijuana all the time.

Under that same flawed line of reasoning, if you support a candidate who wants to legalize abortion, it must mean that you get abortions all the time.

TheTeaParty.net is backing a Gingrich presidency

2012-02-01T10:37:00.001-05:00

On Monday, in an attempt to court Ron Paul supporters, TheTeaParty.net proposed an idea on its Facebook page:

This proposition was met with quite a bit of hostility from Ron Paul fans who scoffed at the idea of Congressman Paul joining forces with two people who they consider to be establishment, status quo candidates with fundamentally different principles than Dr. Paul.

This suggestion also raises the question, why would the Tea Party movement throw its support behind Newt Gingrich? The Tea Party was actually a grassroots initiative led by Paul supporters back in 2007 – a fact that many Tea Party activists in 2012 fail to acknowledge. Since then, individuals who wish to distance the Tea Party from Ron Paul have infiltrated the formerly pro-liberty initiative, and as a result, the Tea Party has become an appendage to the GOP establishment.

TheTeaParty.net is an non-profit organization operating out of Washington, D.C. Created in 2009, TheTeaParty.net states on its website that “members share core principles supporting the United States Constitution as the Founders intended, such as: limited federal government, individual freedoms, personal responsibility, free markets, and returning political power to the states and the people”.

Members of the Tea Party still seem to pride themselves on resisting and taking down the Republican establishment, so why are they supporting a D.C. insider? Gingrich hardly conforms to the principles that TheTeaParty.net claims to embrace.

As a congressman, Gingrich voted to create the Department of Education under the Carter administration, which substantially increased the size of the federal government. Gingrich also sponsored the Drug Importer Penalty Act of 1996 (H.R. 4170), which would’ve allowed for the execution of drug dealers had it been signed into law. He has also voiced support for a federal mandate requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance.

If Tea Party activists are truly committed to a platform of limited government, individual freedoms, and states’ rights, Newt Gingrich is not the candidate they should be endorsing.

Obama avoids drug questions during Google+ hangout

2012-01-31T09:27:00.002-05:00

On Monday, President Obama participated in a Google+ video forum where he responded to questions from potential voters that were submitted via YouTube and the White House website.

Among the 20 most popular questions on YouTube, 18 concerned the War on Drugs and legalization of marijuana. President Obama failed to address any drug-related issues, and instead, stuck to topics like unemployment and foreign policy.

In 2008, Obama voiced his support for medicinal marijuana, claiming that he would not prosecute doctors who prescribed marijuana for medicinal purposes. In 2004, he dubbed the War on Drugs an “utter failure” and stated that the United States should rethink its approach to drug policy.

However, under the Obama administration, the feds have continued raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in California, where state law permits them to operate.

In other news, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul seems to have picked up an endorsement from rapper Snoop Dog.

[Note: As a medical professional, Dr. Paul does not encourage “smoking weed every day.” He does encourage the idea of individual liberty.]

Rand Paul hates us for our freedom.

2012-01-27T15:48:00.002-05:00

Am I throwing away my vote by voting for Ron Paul?

2012-01-21T14:31:00.000-05:00

Addressing Ron Paul's Congressional Record

2012-01-09T21:56:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul's appeal among young people

2012-01-09T16:28:00.002-05:00

ChipIn for my trip to CPAC

2012-01-07T12:13:00.001-05:00

Donate at http://kathryndelong.chipin.com/cpac-2012.

I will be attending the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. this February.

I am using my own money to pay for travel expenses but need some help covering the cost of the hotel, which is upwards of $1,000. I will be staying in D.C. for 5 days/4 nights. As many of you know, I am a college student and have a lot of bills to pay. Going to CPAC is extremely important to me though, and I have really been looking forward to it.

Donations would be greatly, greatly appreciated. I assure you that this money will go to good use.

Thank you to everyone who donated to help me out with my trip to Iowa. Unfortunately, I was not able to go due to my work schedule, but I refunded each and every dollar that I received from people. I was blown away by everyone's generosity.

For the record, I will definitely be going to CPAC - I already got the days off from work.

Thank you for your generosity and kindness. If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me at kmdelong2@gmail.com.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #25

2011-12-16T06:16:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul opposed the National Defense Authorization Act which paves the way for martial law, violates our civil liberties, and allows for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without due process.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #24

2011-12-14T12:30:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul is the only candidate who can beat Obama because he represents real change and will not simply perpetuate the status quo.

The War on Terror's war on liberty

2011-12-09T18:37:00.011-05:00

In post-9/11 America, individual liberty has withered at the hands of the federal government’s “War on Terror.” Counter-terrorism has been used to justify a great deal of the massive abuses of state power during the past decade. The Patriot Act, assassination of U.S. citizens, torture and detention of innocent people, the demise of due process, and most recently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 have all been touted in one way or another as imperative to our national security.

With help from the mainstream media, the State has committed severe crimes against liberty without much resistance from the American people. The masses that have bought into this propaganda truly believe the State's actions are necessary to keep them safe from Islamic extremists who are out to destroy our freedoms and way of life. Ironically, it is not Jihadists who have destroyed the American way of life; it is our own government.

The false dichotomy that George W. Bush created when he said, “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” endures today, and there doesn’t seem to be an end in sight. In this age of counter-terrorism, any individual who questions or challenges the motives of the federal government is wrongfully labeled as anti-American, unpatriotic, and someone who sympathizes with terrorists.

After 9/11, Americans turned to the government out of need for a renewed sense of security. They were fearful, and rightfully so. However, in taking steps to eliminate the threat of another terrorist attack, the Bush and Obama administrations have knowingly given rise to another threat against its people – an invasive, oppressive national government that refuses to reconcile safety and liberty.

That one time I was accused of being a Chinese spy

2011-12-07T11:31:00.004-05:00

This actually happened.

Today, someone posted these comments on two of my YouTube videos:

I usually avoid the race "issue", but I felt compelled to address stupidity of this magnitude.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not trying to play the victim here. I have never felt oppressed or held back because of my race. I'm simply calling attention to the mind-blowing stupidity running rampant in American society.

People on the internet have provided me with a plethora of racist, sexist, ignorant comments, but this one really takes the cake. There are many, many individuals who feel the need to point out that I am Asian. Some do not mean any harm; others do. Regardless of their intentions, why do strangers care so much about my race?

I know I'm Asian. You don't need to remind me.

My ethnicity does not change the fact that I am an American citizen, nor should it have any bearing on my opinions. If you assume that someone is not an American based solely on his or her appearance, you need to wake up.

Go ahead - attack me or appreciate me for my beliefs, but leave my race out of it.

Oh, and I'm not Chinese. Contrary to popular belief, not all Asian people are from China.

I'm not a spy, either. For the record.

Fiscal coordination in the European monetary union

2011-12-02T12:14:00.002-05:00

If member states within the European monetary union begin to coordinate their fiscal policies more closely, it is unlikely that economic growth and stability will follow. Fiscal independence among countries is essential to promoting a stable economy, especially in the absence of monetary autonomy, as is the case in the European monetary union. There are a number of reasons why the idea of fiscal coordination in the Eurozone should not be entertained.

First, coordination of fiscal policies among member states would impede the ability of individual governments to respond to country-specific economic shocks, which would be “detrimental for macroeconomic stability” (Fatás 1). Different countries experience dissimilar fluctuations and idiosyncrasies in business cycles. Since member states in the Eurozone do not have monetary instruments at their discretions to address shocks to the system, their only alternative is fiscal policy tools (Fatás 20).

Due to states’ inability to respond properly to economic shocks, a “one-size-fits-all” approach to fiscal policy would only exacerbate the free-riding problem that has already been quite deleterious to the European monetary union. For example, if one country experienced a demand shock, other governments would be forced to carry the burden of re-stabilization – much more so than if each country was responsible for enacting its own fiscal policy (Beetsma 61). In a system where states do not have fiscal or monetary autonomy, all economic shocks become symmetric.

There has already been an effort to coordinate fiscal policies among the member states through the Stability and Growth Pact and the Treaty of Maastricht. These agreements require member states to keep government deficits below three percent of gross domestic product and government debt below sixty percent of gross domestic product. But, as Phillip Bagus explains in The Tragedy of the Euro, “The SGP was a total failure. For 2010, all but one member are expected to violate the three percent maximum on deficits. The general European debt ratio to GDP is eighty-eight percent” (93).

The practices that were established to encourage countries to pursue analogous fiscal policies have not been successful; the Eurozone is currently in the midst of a serious financial crisis. This may be, in part, due to the lack of fiscal policy oversight throughout the European monetary union – yet another reason why coordination of fiscal policy may hurt, rather than help, economic growth and stability. Even if all member states agreed to pursue similar fiscal policies, it is highly unlikely that all governments would act in accordance with the established “rules”, just as they have failed to do under the Stability and Growth Pact.

Governments use fiscal policy to target unemployment. Currently, the unemployment rate in Spain is 22.6%, while Germany’s sits below six percent. This wide margin helps to demonstrate the challenge that member states would face if they all tried to pursue similar fiscal policies. A country with 22.6% unemployment should probably take a different financial course of action than a nation with only 5.9% unemployment. Fiscal objectives vary from country to country, so conducting fiscal policy on the aggregate level for all member-states would be highly inefficient (Beetsma 64).

Ultimately, the push for fiscal policy coordination among member states will result in a loss of sovereignty. This loss of financial sovereignty throughout the European monetary system paves the way for an all-powerful fiscal institution that may not be able to serve the needs of individual countries as well as smaller units of government could. Attempts to tailor fiscal policy to the needs of seventeen countries with different economic environments and demands are not efficient or feasible. This approach may promote economic growth and stability in some member states, but countries would be better off pursuing their own fiscal policies if they all want to maximize their potential for growth and stability.

A final point that lends itself to the argument that coordination of fiscal policy among countries in the Eurozone will not lead to economic growth and stability has to do with competition. Competition encourages economic growth. If all member states are forced to pursue fiscal policies with parallel taxation rates and levels of public spending, competition will be sacrificed in the process.

---

Bagus, Phillip. “The Tragedy of the Euro.” Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010.

Beetsma, Roel, Xavier Debrun and Franc Klaassen. “Is fiscal policy coordination in

EMU desirable?” Swedish Economic Policy Review, 2001.

Fatás, Antonio and Ilian Mihov. “On Constraining Fiscal Policy Discretion in EMU.”

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2003.

Very easy activism for Ron Paul!

2011-11-28T12:49:00.001-05:00

Don't be lazy.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #23

2011-11-28T12:15:00.002-05:00

Ron Paul wants to legalize competing currencies and eliminate the monopoly that the Federal Reserve currently has over printing money. This is a step towards a return to sound money.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #22

2011-11-21T08:58:00.003-05:00

Ron Paul wants to cut military spending by pulling troops from our 900 military bases in 135 different countries around the world. Cutting military spending does NOT equal cutting national defense spending. It means what exactly what it sounds like - cutting military expenditures.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #21

2011-11-20T12:37:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul realizes that democracy does not equal freedom, nor does it equal liberty.

Herman Cain's foreign policy problem

2011-11-17T19:57:00.006-05:00

America, please wake up. Seriously. I’m begging you.

I have yet to discern the GOP’s fascination with Herman Cain. But with the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary rapidly approaching, it needs to stop.

A Pew Research Poll released today has Cain at 22 percent – only one percentage point behind “frontrunner” and establishment puppet Mitt Romney. A poll conducted by Iowa State/Gazette/KCRG has Cain leading the pack in Iowa with 25 percent.

Instead of going after Cain on things that actually matter – like his terrible 9-9-9 plan, his adoration for Alan Greenspan, and his shocking obliviousness to current events – the media tried to tear down Cain’s candidacy through an onslaught of coverage regarding sexual harassment accusations. But that story was so last week. If we’re looking at the numbers, these charges against Cain (which Rush Limbaugh described as “racially-charged”) certainly did not destroy his chances of winning the nomination – for now.

So maybe voters don’t care whether or not Herman Cain sexually harassed anyone, or perhaps they’ve dismissed these charges as a byproduct of the idiocy of the mainstream media. But surely voters must be concerned about their future president’s knowledge on foreign policy and world events? The obvious answer to this question is, “YES! OF COURSE! The president is commander-in-chief! He should be able to answer a simple question about Libya!” In reality, the answer involves a plan… with numbers… three of them.

The bottom line is: Herman Cain is totally incompetent, and anyone who trusts this man to run the United States of America has not been paying attention.

In an interview last week, Herman Cain struggled to answer a simple question about Libya – whether or not he agreed with Obama’s course of action. This wasn’t mean to be “gotcha journalism”. Watch the video for yourself. Cain had to question and confirm the facts surrounding the Libyan uprising with the reporter before responding. I think it’s safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of people who follow the news would’ve handled this question better than Cain. And they aren’t the ones trying to be president.

Subsequently, another journalist confronted Cain, asking if his response to the Libya question demonstrated a lack of thorough understanding of foreign policy. Cain’s answer – I shit you not – “9-9-9.”

If this doesn’t alarm Cain supporters, I’m not sure what will. What will it take for these Republicans to realize that a vote for a Cain is a vote for a huge question mark in regards to the foreign policy that he would pursue if elected? People are quick to criticize Ron Paul’s non-interventionist approach to foreign policy, but consider this: at least Congressman Paul’s foreign policy objectives are clear.

And it’s not just that Herman Cain “doesn’t have foreign policy experience”. After all, none of the candidates have served as the nation's commander-in-chief. It is difficult to gauge how much foreign policy experience a congressman or former governor might have, and consequently, it is nearly impossible to validate how candidates measure up with each other in this regard. Instead, what voters should be looking for is a candidate who is exceedingly familiar with history and current events at home and abroad, someone who has made his or her potential course of action as unambiguous as possible.

Is Herman Cain that person? Absolutely not.

TIME is participating in media blackout of Ron Paul

2011-11-14T20:25:00.007-05:00

I have never thought of TIME as a particularly respectable publication, especially after reading managing editor Richard Engel's bogus article about the Constitution back in June (the one that was laden with historical errors and disinformation).

Now, TIME has sunk even lower on the credibility scale with its 2011 Person of the Year poll. The 32 candidates that the TIME editorial board has chosen to list on its website for the public to vote on are, for the most part, reflections of the absolute mind control of the masses that the media partakes in.

Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Eric Cantor, Barack Obama, Casey Anthony, Charlie Sheen, Kate Middleton, Kim Kardashian, and even the CEO of Netflix somehow made the cut. Despite an overwhelming victory in TIME's Facebook poll for Person of the Year, Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul did not.

In September, TIME actually published a cover story titled "The Prophet", which detailed how Ron Paul became "one of the most influential voices in Republican politics". Even so, the exclusion of Dr. Paul from TIME's "official" Person of the Year poll demonstrates the magazine's glaring hypocrisy and bias.

In the Facebook poll, as of November 14th, Ron Paul leads with nearly 14,000 votes - more than 10,000 ahead of Steve Jobs who is in 2nd place. It's no secret that Ron Paul's base has quite a presence on the internet, but even if his supporters did "slam" this Facebook poll, the overwhelming margin of victory speaks volumes. Shouldn't a "Person of the Year" be an individual who has impacted society? Under the direction of Ron Paul, the liberty movement has certainly accomplished this.

Currently, "The 99%" is winning the official poll on TIME's website with 42,000 votes. I guess hippies in drum circles defecating on cop cars and demanding free money are a more accurate representation of America these days than the man who has spent his lifetime working to restore and secure liberty, freedom, and prosperity for all.

[Note: The media's disgraceful blackout of Ron Paul comes as no surprise, but that doesn't mean we should still not try to raise awareness.]

The media's bias against truth

2011-11-14T16:50:00.003-05:00

The media is a powerhouse and an overwhelmingly dangerous entity.

Unfortunately, most people are oblivious to the thought control that the media exerts on them on a daily basis. Those individuals who aren’t completely oblivious often decry the problematic “left-wing bias” that exists in the mainstream media. People on the right routinely point out the anti-conservative, pro-liberal agenda that drives media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times.

Today, I suffered through several minutes of Rush Limbaugh’s radio show during my drive home from school. He slammed the media and its blind devotion to President Obama. It appears that Rush Limbaugh’s strategy to exploiting and dismantling the left-wing media bias – and many Republicans and conservatives follow suit – is to throw his support behind anyone on the other side of the political spectrum and lambast anyone whose beliefs do not match up with his own views of Republicanism.

Fighting the left-wing media bias with an onslaught of pro-Republican, pro-conservative editorializing still fails to deliver the most important thing that the media should be providing us with: the truth.

The media wants us to reduce everything to the left/right dichotomy that it has imposed on us. This back-and-forth between the mainstream media and self-proclaimed conservative pundits is a distraction from the issues.

People shouldn’t be mad about biases in the media simply because it makes “their guys” look bad. Instead, their outrage should stem from the disinformation, logical fallacies, and straight-up lies that the media portrays as fact. This is something that everyone should voice their concern for, regardless of ideology and party identification. Truth is not a partisan issue.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #20

2011-11-11T18:14:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul will not send our troops overseas to die in an unjustified preemptive war on Iran. The media and establishment have built up Iran to be a much greater threat than it is in reality.

"Why do you care so much about politics?!"

2011-11-03T13:13:00.000-04:00

Why I care about politics and the economy but not Kim Kardashian's divorce

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #19

2011-11-02T20:37:00.000-04:00

Ron Paul subscribes to the Austrian school of economics which values private property, truly free markets, sound money, and a free society.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #18

2011-11-01T13:33:00.000-04:00

Ron Paul wants to cut foreign aid to Israel and all countries. Israel needs to be more independent and act as a sovereign nation instead of letting the U.S. play such an active role in settling Israeli disputes. Not wanting to pour massive amounts of U.S. money into Israel does NOT make Ron Paul an anti-semite.

A philosophical argument against forced redistribution of wealth

2011-10-27T17:29:00.001-04:00

Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” offers arguments in opposition to John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice”, rejecting liberal-egalitarianism in favor of libertarianism. These arguments are derived from Lockean ideology, which emphasizes natural rights to life, liberty and property. These rights are imprescriptible; there is no way to justify their revocation. Consequently, any violations or constraints on an individual’s liberty – without his consent – are immoral. The only acts that can be held as just are those that come about voluntarily by all parties involved and do not infringe upon the rights of others. Furthermore, governments that frustrate or prevent this process are exercising their powers unjustly. Governments that assist their poorer citizens by redistributing wealth from the richer are indeed upsetting this course of action. Governmental redistribution of wealth does not come about voluntarily; therefore, it is unjust and should not be permitted.

Nozick’s libertarianism reflects the belief that, as rational beings, humans exercise self-ownership. Immanuel Kant’s “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals” presents a single categorical imperative, which necessitates that individuals respect their own rational natures, as well as the rational natures of others. Using a human as a means to satisfy one’s own desires or the desires of others is a violation of that human’s rational nature. This rational nature provides each individual with inherent dignity, but dignity will be forfeited if an individual is only used as a means to an end; treating humans in this way is not morally justifiable. However, redistribution of wealth does treat humans as a means to an end. The self-ownership that rational beings enjoy is inclusive to all that constitutes an individual: his body, talents, abilities, labor, and that which exists as a result of his talents, abilities, and labor (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Wealth comes as a result of an individual’s labor; in accordance with the self-ownership thesis, an individual is fully entitled to that wealth if he has labored for it. Redistribution of wealth forces people to renounce their rights to their wealth.

More specifically, Nozick’s entitlement theory lends itself to the argument against redistribution of wealth. This theory establishes the three ways by which individuals can legitimately and justly obtain property: (1) acquisitions of previously owned holdings, (2) transfers of legitimate holdings by voluntary consent, and (3) rectification for holdings that came about in violation of the first two principles. Nozick’s ensuing principle of distributive justice states that “distribution is only just if it arises from another just distribution by legitimate means” (Nozick 714). Governmental redistribution of wealth does not occur in accordance with any of the principles established by the entitlement theory, so there is no way that it can be justified. This is an act of coercion and does not come about voluntarily.

Nozick contends that other principles of distributive of justice suggest the presence of a central distributor – a person, or institution, who is responsible for allocating resources; furthermore, resources should be distributed in accordance with attributes such as merit and need (Ockham). However, in reality, no such central distributor exists. People do not obtain things with the thought that they might be appropriated in the way that other principles of distributive of justice insinuate. “Things come into the world already attached to people having entitlements over them” (Nozick 718). Only an individual who has rightful ownership of a thing possesses the authority to decide what can be done with it; the government cannot morally compel those individuals to give up the holdings that they are legitimately entitled to.

It is also important to consider the absence of a presumption of equality. The natural rights and self-ownership that Locke and Nozick assume do not grant egalitarianism. In accordance with these rights, individuals may employ their resources in whatever way they desire; this will obviously result in disequilibrium. Only a state that forces individuals to employ their resources in named and distinct ways has the potential to reach equality among its people. But a state that does not allow individuals to maintain sole command over their own things is unjust and immoral. Natural rights and economic equality are incompatible with one another.

In “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”, Adam Smith argues that governmental redistribution of wealth is not necessary in a free market society. A society that rewards more labor with greater sums of money will inevitably lead to financial disparity among individuals, but this will ultimately result in a natural, non-coercive redistribution of wealth. People who work the hardest will earn the most money, providing them with a higher standard of living. Consequently, others will work harder in the pursuit of wealth to attain that higher standard of living, as well. The summation of all individuals’ labor will result in a more developed and advanced society where citizens are able to experience economic mobility.

Egalitarians – those in disagreement with Nozick’s libertarian ideology – argue in favor of governmental redistribution of wealth, asserting that it is necessary “to meet basic material needs” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Even if redistribution of wealth ultimately leads to financial and material benefits for poorer citizens without causing quantitative damage to the rich, this end does not justify the method by which it was brought about. Individuals may have “positive ethical duties” to help the poor, but unless “universal consent for these policies can be secured”, government-implemented redistribution of wealth cannot be designated as moral or just (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #17

2011-10-27T10:29:00.002-04:00

Ron Paul voted against the TARP legislation in 2008. As President, he will serve the people, not special interests.

An Open Message to My Generation

2011-10-27T10:28:00.003-04:00

College does not equal success.
YOU ARE NOT TRAPPED.
Do what you love, and the money will follow.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #16

2011-10-24T14:15:00.002-04:00

Ron Paul wants to make college affordable.

How to Be an Internet Libertrian, Part 1

2011-10-24T13:34:00.001-04:00

If you love liberty and hate neocons, internet libertarianism might be for you!

(This wasn’t meant to offend anyone. I am a proud internet libertarian myself.)

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #15

2011-10-22T11:41:00.001-04:00

Obama is being praised for ending a war that should've never even happened. Ron Paul was one of six Republicans to vote against the War in Iraq nine years ago.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #14

2011-10-21T09:00:00.000-04:00

Ron Paul is consistent. He has never sacrificed his principles and never will.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #13

2011-10-18T16:12:00.000-04:00

Ron Paul's "Plan to Restore America" cuts $1 TRILLION in spending in one year and will get our country back on the path to prosperity.

Donate to the Black This Out Money Bomb starting at midnight on Wednesday, October 19th at http://www.ronpaul2012.com! Every dollar counts.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #12

2011-10-17T13:49:00.003-04:00

Ron Paul transcends the barriers created by political parties. Support for Ron Paul comes from all over the political spectrum because liberty and freedom are not partisan issues. Vote for the person, NOT the party.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #11

2011-10-14T09:26:00.002-04:00

Ron Paul wants to end corporatism. Corporatism, or crony capitalism, is NOT true capitalism and it is responsible for wiping out the middle class. In a true capitalist system, there is no government interference in the market.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #10

2011-10-12T08:54:00.000-04:00

Ron Paul thinks parents should have the right to homeschool their children if they think that is the best option. A one-size-fits-all educational system is inefficient.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #9

2011-10-11T11:32:00.001-04:00

Ron Paul wants to restore sound money instead of operating on a valueless, fiat currency.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #8

2011-10-10T16:44:00.000-04:00

Ron Paul wants to abolish TSA and privatize airline security.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #7

2011-10-07T18:40:00.001-04:00

Ron Paul opposes reinstating the military draft because it is a form of involuntary servitude and a violation of personal liberty.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #6

2011-10-06T11:41:00.002-04:00

Ron Paul supports our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #5

2011-10-05T13:20:00.005-04:00

Ron Paul wants to abolish Social Security (but not overnight).

"Entitlement programs" are a form of financial enslavement, and they are bankrupting our country.

Occupy Wall St. = Socialist Oblivion

2011-10-05T00:05:00.001-04:00

Initially, many libertarians seemed to sympathize with the Occupy Wall Street protestors. After all, the banking elite and big corporations have robbed U.S. citizens. Our taxpayer dollars funded the federal government’s bailouts.

But the Wall St. protestors aren’t demanding that the bankers and CEOs take accountability for generating a financial crisis that the taxpayers had to bear. Instead, their agenda is driven by ignorance, laziness, and blatant stupidity.

A proposed list of demands for Occupy Wall Street was posted on the official website. These demands include a guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment, free college education, one trillion dollars in infrastructure spending, one trillion dollars in ecological restoration, and “immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all”.

I know what you’re thinking, and no, this is not a joke.

The idea that humans should be paid simply for existing is truly disturbing. As a college student, I can attest to the fact that a free education would certainly be nice, but ultimately, someone else would have to foot the cost, and unjustifiably so. These demands are unattainable and completely irrational. Satisfying them would signify the collapse and total failure of the United States of America.

Capitalism means that some people win and some people lose. This framework provides an incentive for individuals to be efficient, productive, and hard working. The crony capitalism and corporatism that thrive in the United States today do not operate in accordance with the principles of capitalism. These systems – masked as free enterprise – breed corruption and serve special interests.

Wall St. protestors are fighting the alleged greed of the upper class with even greater greed. They demand that wealthy individuals sacrifice their earnings to create a society in which everyone is financially equal, and refusal to do so is selfish and immoral. But what I find particularly selfish and immoral is expecting your fellow citizens to finance your existence.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #4

2011-10-04T12:05:00.001-04:00

Ron Paul wants to end the unconstitutional, costly, and inefficient War on Drugs.

Black This Out

2011-10-03T21:12:00.000-04:00

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #3

2011-10-03T13:51:00.001-04:00

Ron Paul understands and supports free trade.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #2

2011-09-30T08:30:00.002-04:00

Ron Paul has received more campaign donations from active duty military than all other Republican candidates combined, as well as Barack Obama.

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Reason #1

2011-09-30T08:30:00.000-04:00

Ron Paul voted against the unconstitutional USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 and 2011.