Hi everybody!
Your lovable Peasant needs to take next week
off, as I am going to be moving. Yes, I know, I
moved just a few months ago, but I've rethought
some of the aspects of my home, and I have
decided that although it has many charms and
comforts to be sure, I have come across another
place that will suit my needs even better, so I am
heading there at the end of this month. I am in
preparation for my move, and need all the time
possible to pick up, pack up, and head over.
I shall be with you, my loyal and wonderful
readers, right after my move. Look for PWAP
to resume in the first week of February. In the
meantime, stay warm! Thank you for your
understanding and your indulgence.
MEM
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Campaign 2012: We Review John Huntsman
Once again, my terrific readers, your favorite Peasant is
caught short again by a republican presidential candidate
having dropped out of the party's race for its nomination
before I can analyze both the candidate and his candidacy.
Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah, most recently President
Obama's expert on China, due to a lack of funds on hand
as well as forthcoming along with being unable to rise
up and out of the basement in the polls, has declared his
presidential candidacy to be over.
Utah's governor from 2005 to 2009, a businessman, and
one of the most knowledgeable people in or out of our
government on China (especially on matters of trade),
possessing great business and political savvy while
lacking in troublesome baggage (unlike some of the
other GOP hopefuls, i.e. Newt Gingrich's marital and
familial turbulence, Michele Bachmann's fast-and-loose
remarks, and Rick Perry's debating miscues to name a few)
has been perceived, wrongly and unfairly, to be insuf-
ficiently conservative by some party activists as well as
some Tea Party stalwarts. This, despite being pronounced
a solid conservative by the Utah House Speaker during
Huntsman's time as governor there; this legislator being
regarded as one of the most conservative elected officials
in the entire nation(!). And Utah is no bastion of left-wing
politics by any standard. Look at the people whom Utahans
elect to local, state, and national office for proof.
Some even criticize Gov. Huntsman for having held a position
of any kind in President Obama's administration, even though
he was the best appointee and a standout in terms of his
effectiveness in his duties and the resulting benefit to the
country. And since when is it an act of party or ideological
disloyalty to serve in an administration headed by someone
from a different party or ideology? This has happened
in Washington before, not to mention in many state capitals.
If someone has strong and unique qualifications to handle
a certain task, and as such surpasses the others in an
executive's own party but who can work with that executive
and vice-versa because they share a common goal, then
what's all the fuss about?
It is your beloved Peasant's hope that Jon Huntsman will be
offered a position of visibility and substance in the next GOP
administration in Washington, especially if it has anything to
do with relations with China. At least we as a nation can
continue to benefit from Gov. Huntsman's knowledge and
service in this manner, especially since he will not be the
Republican Party standard bearer in November's election.
In summation, while your loyal Peasant is adamant upon
electing a strong, principled conservative to replace the
radical Obama in the White House, let us not become so
purist in our quest that either we cannot find anyone to our
liking, or we settle upon someone who will fall short of
meeting our most important needs in pursuing a conser-
vative agenda. It is enough that we nominate and elect
someone who stands with us on the most critical issues
facing our country, job one being repairing our economy.
Besides, any of the remaining candidates are streaks
better than the current incumbent, wouldn't you agree?
MEM
caught short again by a republican presidential candidate
having dropped out of the party's race for its nomination
before I can analyze both the candidate and his candidacy.
Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah, most recently President
Obama's expert on China, due to a lack of funds on hand
as well as forthcoming along with being unable to rise
up and out of the basement in the polls, has declared his
presidential candidacy to be over.
Utah's governor from 2005 to 2009, a businessman, and
one of the most knowledgeable people in or out of our
government on China (especially on matters of trade),
possessing great business and political savvy while
lacking in troublesome baggage (unlike some of the
other GOP hopefuls, i.e. Newt Gingrich's marital and
familial turbulence, Michele Bachmann's fast-and-loose
remarks, and Rick Perry's debating miscues to name a few)
has been perceived, wrongly and unfairly, to be insuf-
ficiently conservative by some party activists as well as
some Tea Party stalwarts. This, despite being pronounced
a solid conservative by the Utah House Speaker during
Huntsman's time as governor there; this legislator being
regarded as one of the most conservative elected officials
in the entire nation(!). And Utah is no bastion of left-wing
politics by any standard. Look at the people whom Utahans
elect to local, state, and national office for proof.
Some even criticize Gov. Huntsman for having held a position
of any kind in President Obama's administration, even though
he was the best appointee and a standout in terms of his
effectiveness in his duties and the resulting benefit to the
country. And since when is it an act of party or ideological
disloyalty to serve in an administration headed by someone
from a different party or ideology? This has happened
in Washington before, not to mention in many state capitals.
If someone has strong and unique qualifications to handle
a certain task, and as such surpasses the others in an
executive's own party but who can work with that executive
and vice-versa because they share a common goal, then
what's all the fuss about?
It is your beloved Peasant's hope that Jon Huntsman will be
offered a position of visibility and substance in the next GOP
administration in Washington, especially if it has anything to
do with relations with China. At least we as a nation can
continue to benefit from Gov. Huntsman's knowledge and
service in this manner, especially since he will not be the
Republican Party standard bearer in November's election.
In summation, while your loyal Peasant is adamant upon
electing a strong, principled conservative to replace the
radical Obama in the White House, let us not become so
purist in our quest that either we cannot find anyone to our
liking, or we settle upon someone who will fall short of
meeting our most important needs in pursuing a conser-
vative agenda. It is enough that we nominate and elect
someone who stands with us on the most critical issues
facing our country, job one being repairing our economy.
Besides, any of the remaining candidates are streaks
better than the current incumbent, wouldn't you agree?
MEM
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Campaign 2012: We Review Michele Bachmann
Friends, as your studious Peasant was researching presidential
candidate Michele Bachmann to review her and her candidacy,
Bachmann had placed far down the line in the Iowa Republican
Caucus last week, the official beginning of the 2012 presidential
campaign. After initially holding front-runner status in the earliest
stages of the campaign season, Bachmann had lost ground and
has since been sliding away into polling oblivion until deciding to
call it a day and return home. This being so, I would still like to
offer my analysis of U.S. Rep. Bachmann, as she will still be a
player on Capitol Hill; Bachmann will run for re-election to
Congress instead of further pursuing the presidency. There are
some things that many conservatives should know about this
Tea Party favorite, and these things should be discussed in an
open and straightforward way; to put a finer point on it,
my analysis of Michele Bachmann will be served straight with
no chaser.
An Iowa native now living in Minnesota, representing that state's
6th Congressional District, Rep. Bachmann's conservatism is
rooted in her rural Lutheran upbringing. Originally a Democrat
(Bachmann and her husband, Marcus, worked on Jimmy Carter's
1976 presidential campaign in Iowa), the Bachmanns switched
to the Republican Party when they became disenchanted with the
policies of Carter and the Democrats, supporting Ronald Reagan
against Carter in 1980. Although a stout fiscal conservative, Rep.
Bachmann is a stronger social conservative in large part due to
her association with the Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater,
a city in Bachmann's Minnesota district. This church is associated
with the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod, a substantially right-of-center
arm of the Lutheran Church which declares the Pope to be the
Anti-Christ. The Bachmanns ceased membership in the Salem
Lutheran Church on June 21, 2011, shortly before Rep. Bachmann
officially began her campaign for the presidency. A spokesman
for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights stated that
the League "sees no evidence of any bigotry" in Michele Bachmann.
However, Bachmann cites evangelist theologian Francis Schaeffer
as a "profound influence" on her and her husband Marcus.
Schaeffer is known to have ties to the Dominionist Movement, the
fundamentalist Christian movement which has among its goals the
occupation of all branches of and all seats in government so as to
bring the country under the "Law of God". Now, your inquiring
Peasant is not accusing Michelle Bachmann of running for the
highest office in the land in order to secure it for the sole benefit
of the members of any particular religious faith. That is not my
intent. But I do raise the question of just how much influence
has this particular theologian on Rep. Bachmann, and does it
(or how likely is it that it) in turn influence her politics?
In my review of Gov. Rick Perry's candidacy I pointed out
his ties to an evangelical religious organization that has ties
to the Dominionist Movement, pointing at the potential danger.
All I'm saying is this: I don't want a government that would
force a particular religion or religious view upon our
country any more than I want a government that would, in
the name of separating church and state, would banish any
and all things even lightly pertaining to a religious informing
of one's politics and political behavior. Your concerned Peasant
does not want to break the grip of the church and state seper-
ation zealots on our government and our culture only to hand
everything over to religious zealots who would make us bow
down to them and their perceptions of God and our being
"One nation under God" --- perhaps I should say "One nation
under those who claim to represent God and His will for us".
Our freedom of religion clause in the Constitution is a safe-
guard against both of these fates; we should take care to pre-
serve this freedom by electing only candidates for office
whom we can trust to respect and protect this guarantee of
religious freedom.
Furthermore, the Bachmanns own a Christian counseling
practice, Bachmann & Associates, which provides "conver-
sion therapy" for homosexuals in order to transform them
into heterosexuals. Although they claim to take a loving
and compassionate approach to their patients who choose
to undergo this treatment, while on the campaign trail Rep.
Bachmann and husband have publicly called gay people
"barbarians" for their sexual preferences. Let me tell you,
my fabulous readers, something: I have had, and have,
some gay friends. They each are wonderful people, loyal
friends, and people of good and gentle, amicable dispo-
sitions. One of them --- God rest him, he's passed on ---
was a conservative, and called himself a republican,
although he was acutely aware of the animosity toward
gay people within the party, much of it from the socially
conservative, "religious right" types. My late friend
may well have become more involved in the GOP
but for this. He railed against the fundamentalist/
evangelical elements within the party who, while most
helpful in turning the GOP toward embracing protection
of unborn humans and other compassionate things in
its platform, have also stated their condemnation of
homosexuals and have opposed (and still oppose)
guaranteeing even the most modest basic rights for
them, rights that the rest of us take for granted.
Another such friend is a fellow whom I met and
have enjoyed an enduring friendship with since
our very first day of college. He has stuck with me
through the proverbial thick and thin. He used to be
a conservative republican until he became accepting
of his sexual orientation, and aware of the opprobrium
dished out by these elements in the Republican Party.
Moreover, there are many, many gay Americans
who have serious disagreements with liberals and their
main vehicle, the Democrat Party, who would love to
join the Republican Party in order to make common
cause with the GOP on the issues pertaining to
limited government and preservation of personal
liberty, including a free and unfettered marketplace
of goods, services, and ideas; they instead are joining
the Libertarian Party, a "third party" with no realistic
chance of gaining any considerable political clout,
or are independents, not belonging to any political
party, or they are Democrats by default, that is, they
believe that although they have sharp differences
of opinion with that party at least there they are not
chastised, ostracized, or condemned for being
what they are, and think that they can live with
being in the party of paternalism. The Republican
Party and the conservatives in general would only
stand to gain in tems of strength by embracing,
or at least not waging a sort of holy war, against
homosexuals. And besides, we have a nation to
save; we must take back our government from
Obama and the Democrats in order to have any
hope of repairing our weak and sickly economy,
let alone undo the damage done by these statists
to other areas of our society. We simply cannot
waste time, energy, and resources on railing
against a group of people just because we may
not be comfortable with whom and how they love.
Your doubtful Peasant is not sure that Michele
Bachmann understands this simple truth, nor would
have made the right priorities accordingly as our
president.
MEM
candidate Michele Bachmann to review her and her candidacy,
Bachmann had placed far down the line in the Iowa Republican
Caucus last week, the official beginning of the 2012 presidential
campaign. After initially holding front-runner status in the earliest
stages of the campaign season, Bachmann had lost ground and
has since been sliding away into polling oblivion until deciding to
call it a day and return home. This being so, I would still like to
offer my analysis of U.S. Rep. Bachmann, as she will still be a
player on Capitol Hill; Bachmann will run for re-election to
Congress instead of further pursuing the presidency. There are
some things that many conservatives should know about this
Tea Party favorite, and these things should be discussed in an
open and straightforward way; to put a finer point on it,
my analysis of Michele Bachmann will be served straight with
no chaser.
An Iowa native now living in Minnesota, representing that state's
6th Congressional District, Rep. Bachmann's conservatism is
rooted in her rural Lutheran upbringing. Originally a Democrat
(Bachmann and her husband, Marcus, worked on Jimmy Carter's
1976 presidential campaign in Iowa), the Bachmanns switched
to the Republican Party when they became disenchanted with the
policies of Carter and the Democrats, supporting Ronald Reagan
against Carter in 1980. Although a stout fiscal conservative, Rep.
Bachmann is a stronger social conservative in large part due to
her association with the Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater,
a city in Bachmann's Minnesota district. This church is associated
with the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod, a substantially right-of-center
arm of the Lutheran Church which declares the Pope to be the
Anti-Christ. The Bachmanns ceased membership in the Salem
Lutheran Church on June 21, 2011, shortly before Rep. Bachmann
officially began her campaign for the presidency. A spokesman
for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights stated that
the League "sees no evidence of any bigotry" in Michele Bachmann.
However, Bachmann cites evangelist theologian Francis Schaeffer
as a "profound influence" on her and her husband Marcus.
Schaeffer is known to have ties to the Dominionist Movement, the
fundamentalist Christian movement which has among its goals the
occupation of all branches of and all seats in government so as to
bring the country under the "Law of God". Now, your inquiring
Peasant is not accusing Michelle Bachmann of running for the
highest office in the land in order to secure it for the sole benefit
of the members of any particular religious faith. That is not my
intent. But I do raise the question of just how much influence
has this particular theologian on Rep. Bachmann, and does it
(or how likely is it that it) in turn influence her politics?
In my review of Gov. Rick Perry's candidacy I pointed out
his ties to an evangelical religious organization that has ties
to the Dominionist Movement, pointing at the potential danger.
All I'm saying is this: I don't want a government that would
force a particular religion or religious view upon our
country any more than I want a government that would, in
the name of separating church and state, would banish any
and all things even lightly pertaining to a religious informing
of one's politics and political behavior. Your concerned Peasant
does not want to break the grip of the church and state seper-
ation zealots on our government and our culture only to hand
everything over to religious zealots who would make us bow
down to them and their perceptions of God and our being
"One nation under God" --- perhaps I should say "One nation
under those who claim to represent God and His will for us".
Our freedom of religion clause in the Constitution is a safe-
guard against both of these fates; we should take care to pre-
serve this freedom by electing only candidates for office
whom we can trust to respect and protect this guarantee of
religious freedom.
Furthermore, the Bachmanns own a Christian counseling
practice, Bachmann & Associates, which provides "conver-
sion therapy" for homosexuals in order to transform them
into heterosexuals. Although they claim to take a loving
and compassionate approach to their patients who choose
to undergo this treatment, while on the campaign trail Rep.
Bachmann and husband have publicly called gay people
"barbarians" for their sexual preferences. Let me tell you,
my fabulous readers, something: I have had, and have,
some gay friends. They each are wonderful people, loyal
friends, and people of good and gentle, amicable dispo-
sitions. One of them --- God rest him, he's passed on ---
was a conservative, and called himself a republican,
although he was acutely aware of the animosity toward
gay people within the party, much of it from the socially
conservative, "religious right" types. My late friend
may well have become more involved in the GOP
but for this. He railed against the fundamentalist/
evangelical elements within the party who, while most
helpful in turning the GOP toward embracing protection
of unborn humans and other compassionate things in
its platform, have also stated their condemnation of
homosexuals and have opposed (and still oppose)
guaranteeing even the most modest basic rights for
them, rights that the rest of us take for granted.
Another such friend is a fellow whom I met and
have enjoyed an enduring friendship with since
our very first day of college. He has stuck with me
through the proverbial thick and thin. He used to be
a conservative republican until he became accepting
of his sexual orientation, and aware of the opprobrium
dished out by these elements in the Republican Party.
Moreover, there are many, many gay Americans
who have serious disagreements with liberals and their
main vehicle, the Democrat Party, who would love to
join the Republican Party in order to make common
cause with the GOP on the issues pertaining to
limited government and preservation of personal
liberty, including a free and unfettered marketplace
of goods, services, and ideas; they instead are joining
the Libertarian Party, a "third party" with no realistic
chance of gaining any considerable political clout,
or are independents, not belonging to any political
party, or they are Democrats by default, that is, they
believe that although they have sharp differences
of opinion with that party at least there they are not
chastised, ostracized, or condemned for being
what they are, and think that they can live with
being in the party of paternalism. The Republican
Party and the conservatives in general would only
stand to gain in tems of strength by embracing,
or at least not waging a sort of holy war, against
homosexuals. And besides, we have a nation to
save; we must take back our government from
Obama and the Democrats in order to have any
hope of repairing our weak and sickly economy,
let alone undo the damage done by these statists
to other areas of our society. We simply cannot
waste time, energy, and resources on railing
against a group of people just because we may
not be comfortable with whom and how they love.
Your doubtful Peasant is not sure that Michele
Bachmann understands this simple truth, nor would
have made the right priorities accordingly as our
president.
MEM
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
What The Peasant Has In Store
New Year's greetings to you, my discerning readers!
With the pivotal new year of 2012 here, your favorite
Peasant wants to give you all a "heads up" on what to
look for in the coming weeks to begin the year.
We shall continue with our review of each of the Repub-
lican presidential candidates, with our rigorous analysis
of their strengths and weaknesses. Then, we will examine
the latest with the ongoing battle for the political and eco-
nomic destiny of the state of Wisconsin, where the public
employee unions and their friends are trying to undo the
decision of the majority of the people from the 2010
election, a clear exercise in democracy, in order to
show everyone what they think democracy looks like.
We shall cover the Obamas and their latest vacation
getaways (all paid for by We the People through our
taxes, of course) and their constant admonition to us
to "sacrifice" for the economic good of our country.
Hey Barack & family, how about you all leading by
example? In addition, we shall view the latest actions
(and inaction) of Congress, as well as Obama's last-ditch
efforts to convince enough voters to vote him back in
for another term (he may as well try to scale a cliff!).
Plus, we'll give some time and attention to some
relevant bits of news from around the country.
Needless to say, we shall certainly be looking closely
at the results of the upcoming caucuses and primaries
in the presidential pickings.
Another item: your busy Peasant will still be posting
weekly for you, but will not always do so on Wednesdays
as has been the practice. My schedule is filling up with
professional and personal commitments which will
require some flexibility on my part to tend to everything
in a timely way. But don't worry, I won't be far away.
We'll still get together for our weekly visits to examine
the political and economic news of the day, and to
promote freedom over statism.
Finally, your intrepid Peasant shall be covering more
political stories from my own backyard, Milwaukee!
Many of you here who enjoy this blog have asked for
more attention to the exciting congressional races in
the vicinity, and I shall also have an endorsement for one
of the fantastic conservative candidates! There shall also
be stories on the Milwaukee scene to share with you!
In all, it shall be an action-packed year for us.
Let us enjoy the new year's offerings. Let the fun begin!
MEM
With the pivotal new year of 2012 here, your favorite
Peasant wants to give you all a "heads up" on what to
look for in the coming weeks to begin the year.
We shall continue with our review of each of the Repub-
lican presidential candidates, with our rigorous analysis
of their strengths and weaknesses. Then, we will examine
the latest with the ongoing battle for the political and eco-
nomic destiny of the state of Wisconsin, where the public
employee unions and their friends are trying to undo the
decision of the majority of the people from the 2010
election, a clear exercise in democracy, in order to
show everyone what they think democracy looks like.
We shall cover the Obamas and their latest vacation
getaways (all paid for by We the People through our
taxes, of course) and their constant admonition to us
to "sacrifice" for the economic good of our country.
Hey Barack & family, how about you all leading by
example? In addition, we shall view the latest actions
(and inaction) of Congress, as well as Obama's last-ditch
efforts to convince enough voters to vote him back in
for another term (he may as well try to scale a cliff!).
Plus, we'll give some time and attention to some
relevant bits of news from around the country.
Needless to say, we shall certainly be looking closely
at the results of the upcoming caucuses and primaries
in the presidential pickings.
Another item: your busy Peasant will still be posting
weekly for you, but will not always do so on Wednesdays
as has been the practice. My schedule is filling up with
professional and personal commitments which will
require some flexibility on my part to tend to everything
in a timely way. But don't worry, I won't be far away.
We'll still get together for our weekly visits to examine
the political and economic news of the day, and to
promote freedom over statism.
Finally, your intrepid Peasant shall be covering more
political stories from my own backyard, Milwaukee!
Many of you here who enjoy this blog have asked for
more attention to the exciting congressional races in
the vicinity, and I shall also have an endorsement for one
of the fantastic conservative candidates! There shall also
be stories on the Milwaukee scene to share with you!
In all, it shall be an action-packed year for us.
Let us enjoy the new year's offerings. Let the fun begin!
MEM
Friday, December 30, 2011
Happy New Year!
To all my wonderful, fabulous, fantastic readers:
Your favorite Peasant wishes each of you & yours
a very joyous, prosperous, bright and beautiful
Happy New Year! 2012 will be an exciting year
for us, as we shall have our presidential election
in November in which we shall complete the work
from 2010 and reclaim our country's government,
and with it our future, from those who want to make
us into at best another Europe, at worst ...
So let us all be merry and bright, for we have much
to look forward to in the brand new year! Let us
be cool and confident in the face of the tumult which
lies ahead, for we have nothing to fear; we shall
attract that which we want to bring about for our
country and for ourselves by focusing on our
desire, and to paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi,
we shall be the change that we want to see!
God bless you all!
MEM
Your favorite Peasant wishes each of you & yours
a very joyous, prosperous, bright and beautiful
Happy New Year! 2012 will be an exciting year
for us, as we shall have our presidential election
in November in which we shall complete the work
from 2010 and reclaim our country's government,
and with it our future, from those who want to make
us into at best another Europe, at worst ...
So let us all be merry and bright, for we have much
to look forward to in the brand new year! Let us
be cool and confident in the face of the tumult which
lies ahead, for we have nothing to fear; we shall
attract that which we want to bring about for our
country and for ourselves by focusing on our
desire, and to paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi,
we shall be the change that we want to see!
God bless you all!
MEM
Friday, December 16, 2011
Merry Christmas!
Your favorite Peasant wishes you, my wonderful readers,
a very Merry Christmas! I'll be taking the final fortnight of
the year off to enjoy the joyous season and will return to
you in the first week of the new year.
Let's put the following item on our Christmas lists
to give to Santa Claus: a new president! One with
the following features:
*Can talk without the aid of a teleprompter.
*Can look us in the eye and tell us the truth about
how things are going in our country, and what he/she
is doing to make things better for us.
*Listens to what we have to say, not ignore us,
talk down to us, nor insult us.
*Talks up our great country at home and abroad
(especially the latter!), not put our country down
and apologize to the world for us.
*Will not wage class war to divide us, but will
praise job creators and their efforts to employ us
and to grow our economy, uniting us in prosperity.
and, finally:
*Won't run away to a golf course when things
get tough!
Now that would be a wonderful Christmas gift
for us, wouldn't it? May all your Christmas wishes,
hopes, and dreams come true for you and your loved
ones! God bless you all!
MEM
a very Merry Christmas! I'll be taking the final fortnight of
the year off to enjoy the joyous season and will return to
you in the first week of the new year.
Let's put the following item on our Christmas lists
to give to Santa Claus: a new president! One with
the following features:
*Can talk without the aid of a teleprompter.
*Can look us in the eye and tell us the truth about
how things are going in our country, and what he/she
is doing to make things better for us.
*Listens to what we have to say, not ignore us,
talk down to us, nor insult us.
*Talks up our great country at home and abroad
(especially the latter!), not put our country down
and apologize to the world for us.
*Will not wage class war to divide us, but will
praise job creators and their efforts to employ us
and to grow our economy, uniting us in prosperity.
and, finally:
*Won't run away to a golf course when things
get tough!
Now that would be a wonderful Christmas gift
for us, wouldn't it? May all your Christmas wishes,
hopes, and dreams come true for you and your loved
ones! God bless you all!
MEM
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Campaign 2012: We Review Ron Paul
Today we shall take a peek at presidential candidate Ron Paul
and his candidacy. A U.S. representative from Texas and a pre-
vious candidate for the presidency, as a Republican and as a
Libertarian, Paul is a unique individual who brings a unique per-
spective to the Republican field of White House contenders and
to the presidential race itself.
RON PAUL
Ronald Ernest Paul was born on August 20, 1935 in Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania, to parents Howard Caspar Paul and Margaret
(nee' Dumont) Paul. His paternal great-grandparents came to
the United States from Germany, and Ron Paul's mother was
of German and Irish heritage. After graduating from suburban
Dormont High School, Paul received a B.S. degree in biology
from Gettysburg State College in 1957. He next earned a Doctor
of Medicine degree at Duke University in 1961. Having married
his wife, Carolyn, in this period of his life, they relocated to
Michigan where Paul would complete his medical internship at
the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, following that with serving
as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963
to 1965 and in the United States Air National Guard from 1965
to 1968.
After leaving the military, the Pauls relocated to Texas where Dr.
Paul established his private medical practice, specializing in
obstetrics and gynaecology. In his medical practice, Ron Paul
regularly lowered his fees or provided his services free of
charge, refusing to accept Medicaid or Medicare payments.
Since his election to Congress, Paul has also refused to sign
up for the government pension that members of Congress
receive, saying that it would be "hypocritical and immoral"
to do so.
While a medical resident, Ron Paul read Friedrich Hayek's
The Road to Serfdom, which led him to study the books
of Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand, who like Hayek
had influenced supporters of free economic markets and
small government. When President Richard Nixon imple-
mented the final steps to divorcing the U.S. dollar from the
gold standard, the young physician decided to enter the
realm of politics, saying in subsequent years "After that
day, all money would be political money rather than money
of real value. I was astounded." Paul joined the Republican
Party, becoming a delegate to the Texas Republican
convention and a Republican candidate for the U.S. House
of Representatives. The year Paul first ran for that office he
lost to incumbent Democrat Rep. Robert R. Casey.
However, President Gerald Ford appointed Casey to the
post of Director of the Federal Maritime Commission,
and Paul ran again in a special election to fill the vacant
office in April 1976, this time winning. In his quest to
win a full term Paul lost the seat to Democrat Robert
Gammage in a very tight race, missing out by just under
300 votes (0.2%), but winning back the office in a
rematch with Gammage two years later. His successful
campaign in the rematch with Gammage was due to his
popularity with the district's mothers, Gammage averred:
"I had real difficulty down in Brazoria County, where he
(Paul) practiced, because he delivered half the babies
in the county. There were only two obstetricians in the
county, and the other one was his partner."
Dr. Ron Paul served in Congress in three different periods
comprising 12 two-year terms: from 1976-77, then from
1979-85, and from 1997 to the present. Paul announced
that he would not be seeking another term in the U.S.
House in 2012 in order for him to concentrate his efforts
on his campaign for the presidency. During his years in
Congress, Paul opposed President Jimmy Carter's draft
reinstatement proposal, blasting his fellow Republicans
for favoring it, accusing them of being "more interested
in registering their children than they were their guns."
He also proposed legislation to cut Congressional pay
by the rate of inflation, initiated a "think tank", the
Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE)
which has published books, monographs, and a monthly
newsletter, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, which touts
the principles of limited government. Serving on the
House Banking Committee, Paul has been a constant
critic of the Federal Reserve, in recent years calling
for an audit of the organization and its findings to be
made public. Paul also blasted what he saw as banking
mismanagement, blaming it for the savings and loan crisis
of the 1980s.
In 1984 Ron Paul ran for the United States Senate but lost
his party's primary. Paul gave up his House seat to run for
the Senate. In the 1988 presidential election, he left the
GOP to be the Libertarian Party's candidate for the White
House, getting on the ballot in 46 states and scoring third
in the popular vote with 432,179 votes (0.5%). Paul stated
that his presidential campaign was to promote his libertarian
ideas, speaking often before school and college audiences,
saying "We're just as interested in the future generation as
this election. These kids will vote eventually, and maybe,
just maybe, they'll go home and talk to their parents."
He also said that the youngsters are the ones who would
inherit the nation's debt and pay the bills, so it was vital
that he reach out to them with his message.
Following the 1988 presidential election, Ron Paul returned
to his medical practice in Texas. He also owned a coin
dealership for twelve years, Ron Paul Coins, and spoke
at the American Numismatic Association's 1988 conven-
tion. Paul sought the Republican nomination for the 2008
presidential race, twelve years after regaining his old House
seat, losing to eventual nominee U.S. Sen. John McCain.
He continued to make appearances at conservative events,
such as addressing the 2009 Conservative Political Action
Committee. Again seeking the GOP nod for a White House
run, Ron Paul is showing the country why he is one of the
most principled, consistent, and disciplined public servants
in politics; long ago, Paul proclaimed that he would "never
vote for legislation unless the measure is expressly author-
ized by the Constitution." While in Congress he made good
on his vow, and shows every indication that he would
continue along this path if elected our next president.
STRENGTHS
Rep. Paul has been described by many as a Constitution-
alist, and is thought of in that term even more readily
than as a conservative or a libertarian. A look at his
voting record over his years in Congress shows that
this is no hype nor hyperbole. Your studious Peasant
is hard-pressed to find a member of either chamber of
Congress, in either political party, who applies the test
of constitutionality more rigorously to legislation than
Ron Paul!
Paul supports free trade, and distinguishes between true
free trade and what he terms the "managed trade" given
us by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The latter have
only sent many of our country's jobs to other countries while
getting nothing in return, except an ever-growing trade
deficit. He supports the U.S. leaving the United Nations
and voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which auth-
orized the construction of a fence along our southern
border where many illegal immigrants had crossed over
to enter our country. As a member of Congress, Paul never
voted to raise taxes or for a budget deficit. Paul also has
opposed the PATRIOT Act, the legislation which was
supposed to provide for better protection against terrorist
threats but has infringed upon some rights of American
citizens, especially when travelling by plane even on
domestic flights. In addition, Paul opposes any national ID
card, the draft, and the War on Drugs, the third item because
of infringements on some rights enjoyed by Americans as
well as the loss of many brave law enforcement people for
nothing, as drugs have reached into every part of our society.
And on the issue of abortion Ron Paul is solidly and unapolo-
getically pro-life. There's a lot to like about Ron Paul for
conservatives, especially those in Tea Party circles.
WEAKNESSES
Although Ron Paul certainly rings conservative chimes with
his stands on fiscal and social matters, his foreign policy
ideas have left many on the right bewildered. Many conser-
vatives find his war alternatives, such as Letters of Marque
and Reprisal against specific terrorist groups to be too small
in scope to be effective as they believe that the governments
of the countries where the terrorists base themselves should
face reprisals as well for harboring them. Paul's opposition
to the War in Iraq also drew criticism from conservative
quarters, as it was widely believed on the right that Saddam
Hussein was connected to some terrorist groups and may have
had weapons of mass destruction on Iraqi soil. While it
may always be a matter for debate as to these two beliefs,
it is certainly clear that Saddam waged chemical war on the
Kurds and some other groups in Iraq who were opposed
to his reign, and may have planned to do the same to foes
outside Iraq's borders. Moreover, either rightly or wrongly,
Ron Paul is perceived to be too dovish on foreign policy
concerning the Middle East and Afghanistan. Paul is thought
of as being a Republican on economic matters and a
Democrat on foreign policy. Your rigorous Peasant also
is perplexed by this dichotomy.
ANALYSIS
Ron Paul is, in many ways, historically reminiscent of the
founding fathers and their ideas for the conduct of the United
States in fiscal and foreign policy. Although some conserva-
tives find him either naive or weak on the latter, Paul does
make up for this perception with his strong stand on border
security and illegal immigration. Paul is every inch the
champion of limited, constitutionally proscribed government
that would certainly be welcome at this critical juncture in
our country's existence. The concerns that many right-of-
center folks hold regarding his foreign policy ideas will
prove to be a stumbling block to Paul's winning the GOP
presidential nomination, but if Ron Paul were to pull off
the trick (and achieve one of the biggest political upsets
in American history) he would prove very tough to beat
for President Obama.
MEM
Related Articles:
and his candidacy. A U.S. representative from Texas and a pre-
vious candidate for the presidency, as a Republican and as a
Libertarian, Paul is a unique individual who brings a unique per-
spective to the Republican field of White House contenders and
to the presidential race itself.
RON PAUL
Ronald Ernest Paul was born on August 20, 1935 in Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania, to parents Howard Caspar Paul and Margaret
(nee' Dumont) Paul. His paternal great-grandparents came to
the United States from Germany, and Ron Paul's mother was
of German and Irish heritage. After graduating from suburban
Dormont High School, Paul received a B.S. degree in biology
from Gettysburg State College in 1957. He next earned a Doctor
of Medicine degree at Duke University in 1961. Having married
his wife, Carolyn, in this period of his life, they relocated to
Michigan where Paul would complete his medical internship at
the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, following that with serving
as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963
to 1965 and in the United States Air National Guard from 1965
to 1968.
After leaving the military, the Pauls relocated to Texas where Dr.
Paul established his private medical practice, specializing in
obstetrics and gynaecology. In his medical practice, Ron Paul
regularly lowered his fees or provided his services free of
charge, refusing to accept Medicaid or Medicare payments.
Since his election to Congress, Paul has also refused to sign
up for the government pension that members of Congress
receive, saying that it would be "hypocritical and immoral"
to do so.
While a medical resident, Ron Paul read Friedrich Hayek's
The Road to Serfdom, which led him to study the books
of Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand, who like Hayek
had influenced supporters of free economic markets and
small government. When President Richard Nixon imple-
mented the final steps to divorcing the U.S. dollar from the
gold standard, the young physician decided to enter the
realm of politics, saying in subsequent years "After that
day, all money would be political money rather than money
of real value. I was astounded." Paul joined the Republican
Party, becoming a delegate to the Texas Republican
convention and a Republican candidate for the U.S. House
of Representatives. The year Paul first ran for that office he
lost to incumbent Democrat Rep. Robert R. Casey.
However, President Gerald Ford appointed Casey to the
post of Director of the Federal Maritime Commission,
and Paul ran again in a special election to fill the vacant
office in April 1976, this time winning. In his quest to
win a full term Paul lost the seat to Democrat Robert
Gammage in a very tight race, missing out by just under
300 votes (0.2%), but winning back the office in a
rematch with Gammage two years later. His successful
campaign in the rematch with Gammage was due to his
popularity with the district's mothers, Gammage averred:
"I had real difficulty down in Brazoria County, where he
(Paul) practiced, because he delivered half the babies
in the county. There were only two obstetricians in the
county, and the other one was his partner."
Dr. Ron Paul served in Congress in three different periods
comprising 12 two-year terms: from 1976-77, then from
1979-85, and from 1997 to the present. Paul announced
that he would not be seeking another term in the U.S.
House in 2012 in order for him to concentrate his efforts
on his campaign for the presidency. During his years in
Congress, Paul opposed President Jimmy Carter's draft
reinstatement proposal, blasting his fellow Republicans
for favoring it, accusing them of being "more interested
in registering their children than they were their guns."
He also proposed legislation to cut Congressional pay
by the rate of inflation, initiated a "think tank", the
Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE)
which has published books, monographs, and a monthly
newsletter, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, which touts
the principles of limited government. Serving on the
House Banking Committee, Paul has been a constant
critic of the Federal Reserve, in recent years calling
for an audit of the organization and its findings to be
made public. Paul also blasted what he saw as banking
mismanagement, blaming it for the savings and loan crisis
of the 1980s.
In 1984 Ron Paul ran for the United States Senate but lost
his party's primary. Paul gave up his House seat to run for
the Senate. In the 1988 presidential election, he left the
GOP to be the Libertarian Party's candidate for the White
House, getting on the ballot in 46 states and scoring third
in the popular vote with 432,179 votes (0.5%). Paul stated
that his presidential campaign was to promote his libertarian
ideas, speaking often before school and college audiences,
saying "We're just as interested in the future generation as
this election. These kids will vote eventually, and maybe,
just maybe, they'll go home and talk to their parents."
He also said that the youngsters are the ones who would
inherit the nation's debt and pay the bills, so it was vital
that he reach out to them with his message.
Following the 1988 presidential election, Ron Paul returned
to his medical practice in Texas. He also owned a coin
dealership for twelve years, Ron Paul Coins, and spoke
at the American Numismatic Association's 1988 conven-
tion. Paul sought the Republican nomination for the 2008
presidential race, twelve years after regaining his old House
seat, losing to eventual nominee U.S. Sen. John McCain.
He continued to make appearances at conservative events,
such as addressing the 2009 Conservative Political Action
Committee. Again seeking the GOP nod for a White House
run, Ron Paul is showing the country why he is one of the
most principled, consistent, and disciplined public servants
in politics; long ago, Paul proclaimed that he would "never
vote for legislation unless the measure is expressly author-
ized by the Constitution." While in Congress he made good
on his vow, and shows every indication that he would
continue along this path if elected our next president.
STRENGTHS
Rep. Paul has been described by many as a Constitution-
alist, and is thought of in that term even more readily
than as a conservative or a libertarian. A look at his
voting record over his years in Congress shows that
this is no hype nor hyperbole. Your studious Peasant
is hard-pressed to find a member of either chamber of
Congress, in either political party, who applies the test
of constitutionality more rigorously to legislation than
Ron Paul!
Paul supports free trade, and distinguishes between true
free trade and what he terms the "managed trade" given
us by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The latter have
only sent many of our country's jobs to other countries while
getting nothing in return, except an ever-growing trade
deficit. He supports the U.S. leaving the United Nations
and voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which auth-
orized the construction of a fence along our southern
border where many illegal immigrants had crossed over
to enter our country. As a member of Congress, Paul never
voted to raise taxes or for a budget deficit. Paul also has
opposed the PATRIOT Act, the legislation which was
supposed to provide for better protection against terrorist
threats but has infringed upon some rights of American
citizens, especially when travelling by plane even on
domestic flights. In addition, Paul opposes any national ID
card, the draft, and the War on Drugs, the third item because
of infringements on some rights enjoyed by Americans as
well as the loss of many brave law enforcement people for
nothing, as drugs have reached into every part of our society.
And on the issue of abortion Ron Paul is solidly and unapolo-
getically pro-life. There's a lot to like about Ron Paul for
conservatives, especially those in Tea Party circles.
WEAKNESSES
Although Ron Paul certainly rings conservative chimes with
his stands on fiscal and social matters, his foreign policy
ideas have left many on the right bewildered. Many conser-
vatives find his war alternatives, such as Letters of Marque
and Reprisal against specific terrorist groups to be too small
in scope to be effective as they believe that the governments
of the countries where the terrorists base themselves should
face reprisals as well for harboring them. Paul's opposition
to the War in Iraq also drew criticism from conservative
quarters, as it was widely believed on the right that Saddam
Hussein was connected to some terrorist groups and may have
had weapons of mass destruction on Iraqi soil. While it
may always be a matter for debate as to these two beliefs,
it is certainly clear that Saddam waged chemical war on the
Kurds and some other groups in Iraq who were opposed
to his reign, and may have planned to do the same to foes
outside Iraq's borders. Moreover, either rightly or wrongly,
Ron Paul is perceived to be too dovish on foreign policy
concerning the Middle East and Afghanistan. Paul is thought
of as being a Republican on economic matters and a
Democrat on foreign policy. Your rigorous Peasant also
is perplexed by this dichotomy.
ANALYSIS
Ron Paul is, in many ways, historically reminiscent of the
founding fathers and their ideas for the conduct of the United
States in fiscal and foreign policy. Although some conserva-
tives find him either naive or weak on the latter, Paul does
make up for this perception with his strong stand on border
security and illegal immigration. Paul is every inch the
champion of limited, constitutionally proscribed government
that would certainly be welcome at this critical juncture in
our country's existence. The concerns that many right-of-
center folks hold regarding his foreign policy ideas will
prove to be a stumbling block to Paul's winning the GOP
presidential nomination, but if Ron Paul were to pull off
the trick (and achieve one of the biggest political upsets
in American history) he would prove very tough to beat
for President Obama.
MEM
Related Articles:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
