"Can we all stop pretending to love Ron Paul, because if you really knew -- like following the Constitution means getting rid of all the middle class subsidies and all the things we take for granted, and actually taking responsibility for yourself. And, nobody really wants to do that."

-- Tucker Carlson

Never would I have thought that I may one day quote Tucker Carlson, but he makes a point about Ron Paul that I think is pertinent. To many right now (including the former chief of the CIA's bin Laden Unit) Ron Paul is the only candidate giving a coherent argument against our current military "fiasco" and offering us a way out.

Yet, I'm sure there are many people who, upon learning many of his other stances, forget about him, figuring he's either unelectable or crazy. Some even just plain disagree.

As for the latter, I'm sure someone saying we need to get rid of social security is pushing a hard sell.



So, Paul wants to get rid of:

1. Department of Education
2. Department of Homeland Security
   
3. Department of Energy
4. IRS
   
5. FEMA
6. UN
7. NATO
8. Interstate Commerce Commission
   
9. NAFTA
10. WTO
11. UNICEF
    

If you're anything like me, you cringed the first time you heard him say that. It just seems counter-intuitive. Yet, one thing I've come to realize is that, as president, Paul wouldn't have the power to do a lot of what he wants to do.

Then, though, once it started to sink in, I began to ask myself about the numerous articles of excessive spending in nearly all parts of government. Misplaced funds. I mean, Hurricane Katrina showed what a disaster FEMA is.

The Department of Education spends money debating whether Intelligent Design is science. Then there's nepotism. There's also things like (mentioned in the video in this post) "rubber rooms" where teachers who aren't fit to teach are kept, but still paid.

Then there's, of course, No Child Left Behind (Don't forget, though, "Childrens do learn.")

When it comes to protecting us, the Department of Homeland Security guzzles money, and the effect seems to be more and more attempts to deprive us of civil liberties. One might think they're more concerned about keeping the people quiet than dealing with terrorists.

Two more subjects that Paul brings up quite often are the War on Drugs and the military industrial complex. Concerning the latter, anyone who's seen Iraq for Sale (watch it) knows what kind of war profiteering is going on right under our noses. We're losing billions (trillions?) for this war, and a large part of that is because we outsource the jobs that soldiers could be doing to private companies (of course, the soldiers have to train the hired hands).

As for the war on drugs, it's been almost four decades and drugs are still readily available.

We're pouring billions into programs in Columbia that have "left the price, quality and availability of cocaine on American streets virtually unchanged." Marijuana is the country's biggest cash crop, and the government's still trying to tell us it causes cancer, even though "the largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer."

Our obsession with marijuana also keeps hemp* of the question for farmers.



Anyone who pays attention to the original front in the War on Terror, knows that the war on drugs isn't unrelated. Since the invasion of 2001, poppy production has sky-rocketed, and heroin from Afghanistan (via Turkey?) is "pouring" into American cities. Of course, it doesn't have to come all the way to the US to have an effect on us, it's apparently quite easy for US soldiers to get over there.**

Still not finished. I haven't mentioned agricultural subsidies.


Somehow, it doesn't seem like people benefiting from farm subsidies should be living in Manhattan, but that's par for the course when it comes to farming subsidies. Subsidies are essentially tax dollars doled out to huge companies (or dead farmers), who in turn raise prices, so that you spend even more money.

The more I think about it. The more I wonder if the tree of the US Government is due for a pruning. I readily admit that I don't know all of the ins and outs, but Paul's positions are starting to look a lot less shocking.

*Hemp could be used to replace many potentially harmful products, such as tree paper (the process of which uses bleaches and other toxic chemicals, apart from contributing to deforestation), cosmetics (which often contain synthetic oils that can clog pores and provide little nutritional content for the skin), plastics (which are petroleum based and cannot decompose), and more.
*I should note that I don't do drugs, nor do I condone it, but I support someone's right to smoke a bowl if they want. I'd actually prefer it to drinking a six pack or burning through a pack of cigarettes.