Ron Paul Liberty Report: Prosperity Or Poverty House Hands Donald Trump His 'Big Beautiful Bill'

"The House narrowly approved President Trump's "big beautiful bill" earlier today, with two Republicans dissenting. Will this bill usher in a new era of prosperity...or will it drown the country in unmanageable debt?" 

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report with a look at The MAGA Don.

From the Ron Paul Liberty Report

From Derik Schneider earlier on The New Democrat: 

"I know I'm not making any news by saying this, but it's important and it leads to my overall point about this bill: at the end of the day, if House Republicans just had a 1 seat majority and every singe House Democrat voted no on this legislation, but every Republican voted yes, the bill would still pass. And the bill is an accomplishment for the House Republican Leadership (led by Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise) in this sense because they can say that they showed that they can govern and get their agenda passed. 

But in the broader world, the BBB is a pretty minor accomplishment because of the fallout that now awaits House Republicans going into 2026, with the increases of the national debt, deficit, and interest rates, that will affect at least 90% of the country in a negative way. And that's just the start of the fallout...

From The New Democrat

So when I look at the bill, (that Donald Trump calls the Big Beautiful Bill) it takes me back to the early and mid-2000s, when you had a Republican President (in George W. Bush) and a Republican Congress. 

President Bush governed on "deficits don't matter"... his own Vice President Dick Cheney literally stated that in 2003. And he simply didn't want to cut government spending because he ran as a New Republican who cared about people, but also believed in "free markets". So as long as a Republican administration was saying "deficits don't matter", you weren't going to have a Republican Congress challenge their own President and risk their own reelection chances. 

So what the Republican Congress's of 2003-04, and 2005-06, did was to say: "We don't believe in budget cuts or tax hikes. So we're going to fund our own new budget priorities, without paying for them. And cut taxes for everyone, without paying for them. And everyone in the country will thank us for that. Well, enough people to keep us in power". 

Now Donald J. Trump and George W. Bush, are obviously different men and politicians. Which is as newsworthy as saying people in Wisconsin can expect cold weather in January. But 1 thing they have in common is "deficits don't matter". Just pass your own conservative budget priorities, but don't pay for them. And cut taxes for everyone and let future government's (administration's and Congress's) figure out how to pay for the credit card bills that G,W. Bush and DJT left for them. They're like an over-spoiled teenage daughter or trophy wife, who is given an allowance and their own credit card, by their daddy or sugar daddy, that is paid for by their daddy or sugar daddy.

It's hard to imagine how government can be any more fiscally irresponsible, than G.W. Bush and DJT, when it comes to government. But they were both elected President twice. And hopefully you don't need me to remind you that elections have consequences. In this case, really bad fiscal and economic consequences, that future administration's and Congress's are going to have to pay for, that the people are going to have to pay for now.  

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Ron Paul: What's On Your Bingo Card For Donald Trump's 'State Of The Union' Speech?

"President Trump is set to address a joint session of Congress tonight. Where will he focus? Where should he focus? Economy? Tariffs? Inflation? DOGE?" 

Source:WTAJ with a President Donald J. Trump (MAGA, Florida) 47th President of the United States & 1st wannabe dictator.

From the Ron Paul Liberty Report

This is from Dr. Ron Paul directly: "The President is going to talk about how the union is doing. But I keep thinking the union implies some good intentions, but I keep thinking. But what I really want to hear the state of the republic. Do we have a republic or an authoritarian government. Most people have in a union a lot of authoritarian things... interventionism and uh... but... 

When Libertarians or even old school Conservatives, (or Classical Conservatives) talk about what they would call a "free society", they're talking about a republic. But just like they're all types of cars, planes, etc, there all types of countries and even republics:

Russia is a republic. They call themselves the Russian Federation. So I guess 1 could call them a federation of republics. But under their Constitution, they are a federal republic. 

China is a republic: The People's Republic of China. But anyone who is familiar with China and communism, knows that China is a Communist Republic. By far not just the most successful communist republic in the world, but the most successful authoritarian republic in the world as well. 

Iran calls themselves the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

My point here is it depends of what type of republic you are talking about. Republic itself doesn't guarantee a free society or not: 

What type of government (whether it's a republic or something else) 

How your constitution is enforced 

Do you have the rule of law or not 

Do you have guaranteed constitutional rights, or not 

Separation of powers, or not, 

Does your military and law enforcement, your Department or Ministry of Justice believe in a free society, or not, and same thing with your courts 

And do your people even want a free society and by-en-large elect people who want a free society or not... all these factors will determine whether or not your country will be a free society or not. 

The republics that I mentioned in the beginning.... no one outside of those countries (except perhaps in MAGA Land) would tell you that Russia, China, and Iran, are free societies. But they're all republics. 

As far as President Trump's speech tonight: I know the far-left (or crazy left) will hate hearing this, but Congressional Democrats don't need any Marjorie T. Greene or Lauren Boebert, professional impersonators tonight. I hate to break it to anyone who is new to America, but the state of the union speech is not a Real Housewives episode. It’s a serious event and part of our Constitution. I know with a lot of the political events of the last 10 years, America might just look like the latest hit, “reality TV show”. But government is supposed to be serious, at least. Leave the political Real Housewives to MAGA.

The state of the union speech is a very serious speech. My advice for House and Senate Democrats is to listen to the speech make any negative facial or physical expressions that you want (hopefully something humorous) let's say short of flipping the bird, or standing up and cussing him out and yelling. He's going to give a bad speech. Why not just sit there and look bored, while House MAGA flips out and goes crazy over it, like they're at a Nazi Party rally or something. 

Congressional Democrats should show the American people that even though the Democratic Party is both the opposition, as well as minority party right now, they're still the political adults in the room. Or at least in the House chamber. And the voters simply made a really bad choice to either vote for MAGA, or not bothering to vote at all. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

Ron Paul Liberty Report: Chris Rossini- 'Who Pays For All The Government Free Stuff?'

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S, Representative Alecandria O. Cortez: the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Congressional Free Stuff Caucus. LOL

"Benjamin Franklin said that: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” How prescient and true. Once theft and redistribution by government is considered acceptable, the downward spiral of civilization begins. It can last for decades, or even centuries. But the end result is always bankruptcy as countless factions ruthlessly fight with one another to be on the receiving end of the heist. When theft by government is no longer considered acceptable, the upward march of civilization resumes."

From the Ron Paul Liberty Report

This blog is perfect timing ( if I may say so myself ) because CNN had a marathon of town halls on Monday with like 5 Democratic presidential candidates including Senator's Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders ( the two farthest left Democratic presidential candidates ) and they're both making the basic argument that the rich has too much money and everyone else doesn't have enough and are struggling to pay their basic bills like college, health care, paid leave, etc and that it's the job of the Federal Government to come in and somehow correct that. And say that it's wrong for rich people to even be rich to begin with, especially when we have so many Americans who are struggling just to pay their own bills.

There are two questions that any voter and taxpayer should ask any politician or candidate who is seeking reelection or a new office, when they make a lot of promises to people about new government services, especially if they argue that these new services would be free:

How are you going to pay for all of these so-called free services? If they say the rich are going to pay for it with some new wealth tax ( lets say ) then you should ask especially if you're familiar with the Internal Revenue Service, our tax code, and how the wealthy avoid paying taxes ( including these so-called Hollywood Leftists ) who is going to pay for these new and current government services when the wealthy avoids paying their new taxes. The only way that government can pay for anything when they're short on revenue like through tax avoidance are two ways: pass those taxes onto the middle class. Or just just borrow that money from China or another country and add to their budget deficit and debt.

I would have a lot more respect for these Socialists running for office ( whether they're self-described Socialists or not ) if they were just upfront and candid about how they would pay for their new government services and just say: "you middle class taxpayers are going to pay for these new government services through new payroll taxes or other new taxes." Or they could say that they believe that deficits and debt doesn't matter and therefor we could just borrow the money from other countries and add to our deficits and debt. But don't overpromise and pander especially to young voters, especially young Democrats who tend to be overly idealistic to begin with and believe that government can solve every problem itself, if you just give it the money to do that.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Ron Paul Liberty Report: 'Emergencies Do Not Trump The Constitution'

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- U.S. Representative Ron Paul: R, Texas. 

“Using “national emergencies” to rule by diktat is an old and unfortunate tradition among U.S. presidents. It is also unconstitutional.”

From the Ron Paul Liberty Report

In the United States we have not only separation of powers, but three branches in our national government that all have different roles and responsibilities. Whether they're all equal or not and under the Constitution they're supposed to be, they all have different roles and responsibilities. If the President wants new funding to pay for one of his new priorities or additional funding to an existing program in the government, he has to get that approved by Congress. He can't just pass that new funding and objective on his own. he has to get that approved by House and Senate and sign it into law.

Source:Newsmax- President Donald Trump: "what national emergency?"

I'm not a lawyer and neither is Representative Ron Paul, but just looking at President Trump's so-called national emergency there are at least two obvious problems with looking at it from the outside.

The first one is practical and that the emergency that the President Trump is declaring simply doesn't exist. Not even Fox News, Newsmax, Breitbart, America One News, or any other right-wing pro-Trump media outlet is reporting that there are millions, thousands, or even hundreds of less of people coming across our southern border right now illegally. If there is any emergency whatsoever as it relates to illegal immigration in America and I don't believe there is one, but the fact that have 10-15 million illegal immigrants in America in a country of 320 million people is certainly an issue that this country has been trying to deal with going back to the Reagan Administration.

President Trump said himself the day that he declared his so-called national emergency that he didn't have to declare right now. I don't know about you and I image everyone would agree with this, but if my house was on fire I would call the Fire Department right away to get the fire put out, because that would obviously be an emergency. Donald Trump ever since he started running for President in the summer of 2015 has been talking about the need for a border wall on our southern border and there is an emergency at the border.

Donald Trump, was elected President a year and a half later after he announced his presidential campaign and has been President for 25 months now and not once until after Republicans lost the House in November 2018, did he either officially declare an emergency at the national border, or send up a bill to the Republican Congress in 2017-18 to get his border wall completed. And you can talk about 60 vote rule in the Senate all you want and that Democrats had 48-49 seats in the Senate during that Congress, but if you're familiar with Congressional spending rules, you know that Congress can pass a spending bill out of the House and Senate with simple majorities in both chambers.

President Trump and Congressional Republicans could've passed a border security bill on their own with just Republican votes both in the House and Senate under reconciliation. But they chose to spend six months on ObamaCare repeal and when they failed there they went to tax cuts where they did pass their tax cuts through reconciliation in the House and Senate. So President Trump seriously has a credibility problem claiming that there is an emergency at the border which is why he declared his national emergency, when he's already admitted that he didn't have to declare his emergency.

The other issue with President Trump's so-called national emergency is constitutional. Congress, not the execute appropriates money for the Federal Government. Congress, has the power of the purse and gets to decide what the government can spend and what they can't spend. Meaning that the executive can only spend money that has already been approved by Congress to spend on the priorities that Congress has approved at the levels that Congress has approved. In other words, Congress decides what the levels of funding are in the budget and where and how that money is spent . Once the President and Congress agree on what levels of funding and where that money is going to be spent by the government, then the Executive has the responsibility to spend and enforce those laws that have already been passed and sign into law.

As much Donald Trump might want to be President of the Russian Federation or the King of the Saudi Kingdom, or lead any other right-wing or any other dictatorship in the world, unfortunately he's the President of the United States and just our problem to deal with. But we still have our checks and balances and separation of powers. Things that every single American gets to learn about when they're in high school. I took U.S. Government as a sophomore in high school. This is not something that we have to read books or listen to documentaries about as adults, but something that we learn in high school and take further courses on in college if we decide to do that, but something that Donald Trump seems to have very little knowledge about or interest in.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.

Ron Paul Liberty Report: 'Republicans Responsibility For Socialism's Comeback'

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- U.S. Representative Dr. Ron Paul, Libertarian, Texas 

"According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos survey, 70 percent of Americans, including about 50 percent of Republicans, support Medicare for all, the latest incarnation of single-payer health care. Republican support for a health plan labeled “Medicare for all” is not surprising considering that Republican politicians support Medicare and that one of their attacks on Obamacare was that it would harm the program. Furthermore, the biggest expansion of Medicare since its creation — the Part D prescription drug program — occurred under a conservative president working with a conservative Congress." 

From the Ron Paul Liberty Report

I think the way I would look at this would be to go back to George W. Bush's Administration. where Republicans with help from Congressional Democrats expanded the Federal role in public education in 2002. And then instead of reforming Medicare in 2003 a Republican Congress with some help from Senate Democrats and no help from House Democrats, expanded Medicare in 2003 with the prescription drug benefit in Medicare.

I'm not calling President George W. Bush a Socialist, but to argue that he was a Conservative doesn't sound right either. He expanded the Federal Government almost across the board except when it came to the regulatory state where his administration almost had an hands off approach when it came to government regulations of the economy. And you could argue that Ayn Rand approach to government regulations contributed to the 2008 financial crisis that lead to the Great Recession, with the Bush Administration being asleep at the wheel while American banks and investors were making irresponsible investments on Wall Street that they couldn't cover the losses for.

I believe the real reasons why socialism is making a comeback in America, has to do with President George W. Bush and his handling of the economy that you could at least argue is at least partially responsible for the Great Recession of 2008-09 and young Americans getting stuck with the bill for that economic collapse and finding themselves either with college diplomas, but are unable to find jobs that makes them financially independent or having to work multiple jobs just to pay their bills. Along with have college loans that they can't pay back that are eating away at their income.

And then you have people like Senate Bernie Sanders ( the only self-described Socialist member of Congress ) come along and make all sorts of promises of government being able to do this and that for the people and all of these new government services and expansion of current government services are going to be free and young naive people thinking that sounds cool ( or awesome ) to them and they get behind someone like a Senator Sanders and back his message of socialism.

Ron Paul Liberty Report: Ron Paul & Chris Rossini- 'Government's Can't Legislate Morality'

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- the U.S. Constitution on fire?

"America's Founders did not delude themselves into believing that government was a moral institution with a responsibility to take care of people. They understood that government was violent force, and that the best way individuals to thrive was to chain that force down as much as possible. Those chains have obviously been removed, and the terrible results should not be a surprise. Ron Paul discusses on today's Liberty Report." 

From the Ron Paul Liberty Report

I agree with Ron Paul on one thing here: Chris Rossini makes a good point that I'll mention as well, but Representative Paul said that government is one of the last institutions to legislate morality. Why is that? Because government represents and governs the people. 

Government is only as good as the people they represent. Rarely if ever better and in many cases worst. Americans tend not to avoid paying their taxes and taking bribes. Legislatures who vote for bills because thats what their donors want them to do. But a lot of politicians do and you could argue every politician takes bribes at least in the sense that lobbyists tell them that if they vote for or against this piece of legislation, they'll give them their support. Financial support, as well as their endorsement.

When politicians do corruption, its what's called legalized bribery. Joe or Mary Jones (or whatever name you want to use) tells Senator Smith or Wilson, that if they vote for or against this legislation, they'll back their reelection campaign financially and verbally. But if a private citizen offers a police officer 20 bucks if they don't write them a ticket, that person could be arrested for attempting to bribe a police officer. If people want a moral government, then they need to vote for moral people to represent them in government and then hold them accountable.

It's easy for anyone to run on morality in a political campaign. But that old cliche of actions speak louder than words, the intelligent person who came up with that quote must of had politicians in mind when they said that. Because behaving in office and actually doing what you campaign on, is hell of a lot different than saying we need morality and I'm in favor of this against that and this is what I'm going to do if you elect or reelect me.

Government is only as good as the people it represents and that is government when its at its best. And there are good moral politicians and I believe most civil servants, as well as law enforcement officers, foreign affairs officers, military personal, as well as a lot of politicians, are generally good people who want to do the right thing. (No, I really believe that) 

But if government wants a moral society, than they need to set the example and not try to hold the people they're supposed to represent to a higher standard than they are willing to hold themselves simply because they think they can get away with it and have the power. Because at the end of the day the people always have the power in a liberal democracy. The power to fire politicians who don't do a  good job representing them. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

David Seaton: Ron Paul Interview (1988) Ron Paul's Libertarian Vision

Source: David Seaton- U.S. Representative Ron Paul R, Texas-

Source:David Seaton

Ron Paul, sounding less radical even as a Libertarian than I was expecting from him in 1988. He was talking about eliminating the income tax, which is something I would like to do, but then replacing it with a national sales tax, which is also something I want to do. Which is a top for another post. And he was also talking about sending more money and power back down to the states. Not eliminating public education, but making private education available to students. Very radical for lets say a Progressive, or Social Democrat on the left whose never in favor of eliminating, or even lowering taxes and not in favor of reducing the power of the Federal Government at least as it relates to the economy. But for a Libertarian not very radical.

Generally when you hear libertarian political candidates speak they say they're going to repeal at least two amendments from the Constitution, eliminate the income tax, the New Deal, Great Society, pull all Americans troops out of Europe and Japan on day one of getting into office. Even if they know enough about that government that doing even a few of those things are not very practical. Because of the opposition that would come from both Republicans and Democrats. But also the voters as well. But by the time Representative Paul ran for president in 1988 he was already in his sixth term in the House and had a pretty good idea about how Congress worked. So he wasn't proposing to repeal a bunch of constitutional amendments and that sort of thing, because he knows how difficult that is.

Ron Paul's Message to Paul Krugman

I can't really comment on what Paul Krugman supposedly said about Ron Paul, because I haven't seen that Paul Krugman column. I don't read him that often. From time to time I see him on TV. But I believe one of the issues that the Krugman crowd and his followers have with Representative Paul, is that Paul represents everything that they are against. At least from an economic perspective and to a certain extent and social perspective as well. Since Paul doesn't support the welfare state, or the nanny state and people as far as the left as Krugman tend to believe in both. That people need need big government to manage their economic affairs for them, but also tell them what they can eat and drink. And tell them they need to wear bike helmets and that sort of thing.

And because Ron Paul Libertarians represents everything that Paul Krugman Progressive/Socialists lets say hate, they try to make Paul look worst than  he is  and to make him look like something that he's not. So they'll try to tie him to these so-called white racist groups. Or to say that Ron Paul actually supports some big government and isn't as libertarian as he claims, because he's pro-life on abortion, or has ties with Far-Right Christian-Conservative groups. Representative Paul, is pro-life on abortion, as well as the death penalty, as his record in Congress in the House of Representatives makes clear. But he's also pro-life on the death penalty. Something the Far-Left won't give him credit for. But other than abortion he has no real connections to Religious Conservative groups. Other than protecting freedom of religion.

I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul either, other than we tend to agree on the social issues. Except for abortion, but the reason why Paul has so much support with young voters who tend to be liberal and libertarian and even liberal-libertarians, is because he doesn't want big government in our wallets and homes. And despite the political support that Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is getting with his presidential campaign, that is where young Americans tend to be today. And the Paul Krugman followers are smart enough to know that. And know to bring some of those Paul people to them they feel they need to make Ron Paul look like something that he's not. Which is a bigot, who hates minorities and poor people and everything else that they care about.

ABC News: This Week With George Stephanopoulos: Ron Paul (2012)

Source:ABC News- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) talking to ABC News.

Source:The New Democrat

"Despite third place Nevada finish, Ron Paul vows a long campaign battle." 

From ABC News

Ron Paul, is 2012, running for President in a party that still had a very young and developing conservative libertarian faction in it. And never had a blizzards chance in South Florida of ever winning the Republican nomination for president. 

Remember, the 2012 presidential race, was between Flip Flopper (I mean Mitt Romney, but we all know why Mitt is called Flip Flopper) and a big government Christian-Conservative (so-called)  in Rick Santorum, who spent sixteen years in Congress voting in favor of big government and higher debt and deficits. At least while he was in the Senate and especially after George W. Bush became President in 2001.

2016, can be different for Ron’s son Senator Rand Paul who will now have a growing and more mature and bigger conservative libertarian faction behind him. And the opportunity to combine his father’s positions on civil liberties and personal freedom and keeping Federal power in check and even shrinking it. While at the same time develop a national security and foreign policy that doesn’t try to have American policing the world on its own. But doesn’t turn the rest of the world off either. That listens too and works with our allies. A conservative internationalist foreign policy in the mold of Ronald Reagan.

Ron Paul: 'How We Can Solve the Problems With Public Education in America '

Source:Forbes

First of all just to respond to a couple of points that former Representative Ron Paul made about public education in America. As far as the U.S. Department of Education being unconstitutional. The Federal courts have already ruled on this and guess what the U.S.D.E still exists and is in place since 1979. And I'm not a fan of it and don't believe we need it. And would rather see a White House Office on Education and make to part of the Domestic Affairs Council or something. But it is constitutional under the commerce and welfare clauses as the courts have already ruled. Maybe the commerce and welfare clauses should be what you focus on and whether U.S.D.E should be in place on policy grounds instead of constitutional grounds. That would be a better avenue to go.

As far as homeschooling, I'm not a fan of it, but if parents who are qualified to teach in America decide to do that for their kids, more power to them. The real focus here should be on public schools because parents who can afford to send their kids to private schools will continue to do that especially if they feel those schools are better than what the public schools have to offer. But for everyone else the overwhelming ninety-percent of us public schools are going to be the avenue for them. So you want public schools working better and the means no longer sending kids to schools based on where they live especially if they live in a bad school district which a lot of low-income students do. And instead letting their parents decide where they go to school instead.

Stop funding schools based on where they are located. And instead fund schools based on what they need to do a good job in a fiscally responsible manner. That means changing how schools are funded and moving away from the regressive property tax.

Stop paying educators based on how long they've been teaching. And instead pay them based on how well their kids are learning.

As far as students loans and student debt instead lets just make college affordability universal. Free college for the qualified for college students who go to an instate public university. If you go out of state and college financing plan that would be paid for by a combination of students, parents, employers and even government chipping in over a twenty year period to finance the students college education.

Instead of making education in America what is best for the private school industry, or make it what is best for teacher unions we instead should make it what is best for the students themselves. And that means choice within the public school system. Paying teachers based on how well their students are learning. Funding schools base on need and not location. And making college affordable for all qualified students.

Ron Paul: Learn a Little Economics

Source:Lew Rockwell

If you are talking about raising the minimum wage from $7.25 and hour to 10-12 dollars an hour without any relief for small employers especially people who run, lets say local restaurants or hardware stores, then I would agree with you that giving low-skilled workers making seven or eight bucks and hour would hurt those business’s. But that is not the minimum wage increase that I’m on favor of. What I want to do is raise it to 10-12 dollars an hour with a thirty-percent tax break at least for small employers.

Which means these employers payroll costs wouldn’t go up a dime based on the minimum wage. And for any minimum wage increase to come out of this divided Congress with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, the tax break I’m talking about is probably going to have to be part of that minimum wage increase. Otherwise it probably has about a zero percent chance of passing and even with the tax break, the chances of it passing aren’t very good to begin with.

The economics of increasing the minimum wage to 10-12 bucks and hour again with the tax break that I’m talking about are very clear. You want more people working and fewer people collecting public assistance, then work simply has to pay more than not working. And that is not the case right now if you add up all the benefits that low-income people can make in dollars from public assistance. A low-skilled person can get more money not working at all and perhaps not even looking for work. Which doesn’t do that person much good or their kids much good or the economy as a whole much good.

The minimum wage isn’t a cure-all for poverty in America. You need more educational and job training opportunities for our low-skilled adult population as well. But you increase the minimum wage to the point that this population makes more money working whatever the job, than not working and you make education and job training available for these adults, they can get themselves good jobs and get off of public assistance all together which benefits everyone.

Actually having the minimum wage as low as it is right now at $7.25 an hour hurts the economy, because the taxpayers have to pick up the rest of the bill that these employers don’t pay to take care of our less-fortunate population. And that means keeping taxes high to the point to pay for those public assistance benefits. Which any real Conservative shouldn’t be in favor of.

Ron Paul: How to Sell Liberty (1990)

Source:Real Life Journal

You convince people they are more qualified to make their decisions than government. When you have an educated society and not just an educated class, but a society where most of the country is educated and has the tools to manage their own affairs then you won’t need a big government, or any government trying to manage the people’s affairs for them. Because the people will know how to do these things for themselves. Both from a personal and economic perspective. The biggest threat to big government and statism and what big government supporters should worry about the most is not individual freedom. Individual freedom and limited government are the alternatives to big government. The biggest threat to big government and statism is an educated society.

When people have the tools which is education to manage their own affairs, then they’ll know what to do and what not to do with their own lives. They’ll know not to attack innocent people, because they’ll know that is wrong. They’ll know where to work, because they’ll know what they’re qualified to do and what the pay and benefits comes from the jobs they are qualified for. They’ll know where to live and what is the best place for them, because they’ll know what they can afford and what would be the best community for them. They’ll know where to get their health insurance, what to eat and drink and how much they can handle of those things. How to plan their own retirements, where to send their kids to school. Whether they should smoke, or drink, including marijuana. And who they should sleep and live with and when if ever they should marry their romance partner.

Statists, especially nanny statists both on the Far-Left and Far-Right generally view people as stupid. And not able to manage their own affairs and see freedom as the freedom to make mistakes. Which is why they believe in statism whether its Marxism, or some type of religious theocracy. Which again is why education is the biggest threat to big government. And why statists can’t afford an educated society, because then they won’t have the support for their big government philosophy. So you educate the society and make quality education universal for everyone including low-income children and you’ll have a society that believe in liberty, because they’ll know how to manage their own affairs for themselves.

Morton Downey Show: Ron Paul (1988)

.

Source:Real Life Journal

Morton Downey Jr. who died from overuse of tobacco in 2001, tobacco being an illegal narcotic drug in America and yet he was in favor of the War on Drugs. Here debating U.S. Representative Ron Paul on the War on Drugs. Well actually the War on Illegal Drugs, drugs that are seen by the U.S. Government as too dangerous for personal use and personal choice. Well that is Washington speak for “drugs that do not have a strong enough lobbying operation to lobby Congress and the White House for legalization."

You want to know why marijuana is illegal in America? (Well I’ll tell you anyway) It is because they do not have the back pockets of enough Representatives and Senators in Congress. They haven’t bought off enough members of Congress to get their drug legalize. Besides alcohol and tobacco, soft drinks and junk food have already beat marijuana to the punch as far as getting their products legal and keeping them legal with very few regulations. While keeping marijuana illegal. What Representative Paul is saying is that legal drugs are the main problem in America when it comes to drugs. And locking people up for what they do to themselves is simply not working.

I'm not for legalizing all current illegal narcotics in America. I stop at legalization and regulation of marijuana, but then I would decriminalize the others simply because locking people up and sending them to prison for what they do to themselves. Which is has simply not worked as we now have over forty-years of evidence and experience to know. So I'm closer to Representative Ron Paul here than I'm with Mort Downey, who died for over consumption of a legal narcotic and that being tobacco. You get people to not make bad decisions with their own lives by showing them and convincing them why that would be wrong. Not by punishing people for what they do to themselves.

The Film Archive: Ron Paul On The Principles of the Libertarian Party in 1988

Source:Real Life Journal

The Ron Paul of 1988 is the Ron Paul of 2012 when it comes to his principles. Whether you agree with Representative Paul or not and I tend to agree with him when it comes to issues with the national debt, budget deficit and social issues, at least you know where he is on the issues. The closest thing that the so-called Left from Center-Left where I am, to Far-Left where Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats in America would be, is Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. The only Independent member of Congress. And the only self-described Democratic Socialist member of Congress. But certainly not the only Democratic Socialist in Congress. Especially in the House if you look at how some self-described so-called Progressive Democrats talk and vote.

Someone like a Ron Paul a hard-core classical Libertarian, who is actually fairly Far-Right on economic policy and libertarian on social issues, but not completely anti-government there at least when it comes to people hurting innocent people, could never get elected President of the United States. At least not in the near future. Because even though Americans now tend to agree with Paul on social issues, they like Social Security, Medicare, a public safety net for people who truly need it.  But that is what makes Paul so principled, because I believe he knows these things, but he doesn't see politics as a popularity contest. And believes in his own views so much that he's willing to speak out in favor of what he's in favor of and what he's against. Even if no one else agrees with him.

There's a lot to respect about people who are willing to continue to fight losing battles. Equal rights for all Americans was certainly not popular in the 1940s and 1950s. And yet that is where you see the American civil rights movement get started and about twenty-years later we get the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and a few years after that the 1968 Fair Housing Law. Where those laws don't pass without a lot of support from Congressional Republicans in both the House and Senate. Just because something, or someone might seem unpopular at the time, doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for. Which is what I believe Ron Paul supporters and other hard-right Libertarians should be thinking as they move forward.