If Electing Ron Paul is ‘Unthinkable,” so is dumping the Federal Reserve, going back to the Gold Standard, and ending the Federal Government’s War on the American Citizen!

Think of this as the start of a book on restoring and improving upon our constitutional order.

Introduction, An Unthinkable Political Agenda, and the Overton Window:

 To fix what ails America we are going to have to go deep and think the unthinkable,  to look at the fundamentals. Like any football coach of a losing team, he insists they go back to the basics. We were conceived as a nation by Christian men steeped in legal, cultural and social tradition—mostly from Great Britain. They brought and were taught certain things, and had the bitter experience of tyranny to back up their ferocious desire that this new nation be preserved for future generations in law, liberty and morality.

 Sadly, as in all human endeavors, they weren’t perfect, nor were their efforts. They knew it. Perhaps sadder still, today’s politicians do not recognize their limits, their imperfections. I believe Ron Paul “gets it” at least in part. That is why I will continue to back him until some proof as to his unfitness convinces me otherwise.

Here is why I believe Ron Paul to be the only republican candidate worthy of support, his unthinkable. political agenda for restoring our constitutional republic.

 Ron Paul is being attacked, in part because he is “extreme,” even “crazy.” Why? Because most Americans no long recognize the truth about America’s founding and how necessary it is to get back to that vision, no matter what it takes. Even conservatives are now mostly “status quo” on size of government issues. That is a hopeless stance to take. It accepts defeat, and ensures our complete destruction as a coherent society.

First this, regarding policy issues, you may recall from the Glenn Beck show he talking about the Overton Window. Go to Wikipedia for the full article:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window  

My excerpt is below:

“…[T]he “window” includes a range of policies considered to be politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too “extreme” or outside the mainstream to gain or keep public office. …  The degrees of acceptance of public ideas can be described roughly as:

  • Unthinkable

  • Radical

  • Acceptable

  • Sensible

  • Popular

  • Policy

Ron Paul is viewed “extreme” by many who accept the status quo regarding size and power of government, perhaps demanding the clock be set back only to 2008. Dr. Paul may accept that as a first step on spending, but only a tiny first step. His commitment to cut federal spending by $one trillion in his first year, is truly the only acceptable cut. Any less ensures disaster.

Longer term he will eliminate several departments altogether, merging any legitimate functions into others. I would go further, cutting even more. Compared to me Dr. Paul is a moderate! I would go further!

Many things Dr. Paul would cut are now “unthinkable” only because most Americans, even conservatives, do not accept that we must cut the federal government back inside the Constitution—with no exceptions!

National Sovereignty, Defense and Foreign Affairs

Most of the upset about Dr. Paul is that he is really bad on national defense and foreign policy, never mind he insists we close the border immediately and take away the illegals’ incentives to stay here as well as the openness of our borders to criminals and terrorists. Not closing our borders makes other efforts worse than useless.

Now go to Ron Paul’s own website and read the many articles discussing his issues. First, his executive summary:


About his his National Defense stance there is more confusion and disinformation than any other of his issue statements: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

Where does he say to destroy Israel? What he does say, maybe not in so many words, is that national sovereignty means something. Every nation has a right to exist. Even Nazi Germany, had it not attacked other nations would have been left alone, a build up of arms near any of its borders justified neighbor nations doing the same. Sabre rattling by said warrior nation met by similar shows of force by neighbors—but only rarely should it call for a pre-emptive attack.

At what point does a threatened nation launch a pre-emptive strike? Dr. Paul has not, to my knowledge addressed that unless it is to say we, being far distant should not—especially when the threat from Iran is not clear. There are differences of opinion among “experts.” The head of Israel’s Mossad even saying that Iran is far from being a nuclear threat.

As an aside, what happened to the computer virus that supposedly wiped out Iran’s effort for at least a couple of years? How come we don’t hear anything about that now? Just asking, nothing to do with Dr. Paul—that I know of.   

All I have read and heard him say about Israel is to leave them alone to fight their own wars. How is that “destroying” them? He is for cutting all foreign aid to all nations, without playing favorites. Foreign aid has been proven to mainly prop up dictators, making poverty and oppression worse in most if not all recipient nations. If our remaining troops and bases are attacked, (Radar shows aircraft or missiles coming our way) we take action. Private citizens and businesses generally assume their own risks, but our Navy would and should take care of piracy or acts of war against American citizens and interests. I think.

We would stay out of other nations’ business, and insist they do the same.


There is much more to be said about the concept of sovereignty, starting with the individual, the family, the small community, the state and our collection of states known as the United States. By his cutting government back, ending the police and regulatory state, Dr. Paul will do more to restore our freedom to be sovereign in our own lives than any other candidate. I will have more on that in future chapters. 

If, indeed, Ron Paul is part of some dark conspiracy, I have not heard it. It is still early, for Virginians, in the process so I am always open to the truth. I, like always, await solid evidence. Then I will make up my mind and act accordingly.

No candidate is, or can be, perfect! I wish they all thought exactly like me! Then, I guess politics would get boring, rather quickly! But, Dr. Paul is, if anything, too moderate for my tastes; which is why I would never get elected to anything!

Under me, government at all levels would be forced back to perhaps one third, at the most, its present size. Its power would be even smaller, focused only on the few things allowed by federal and the best of the states’ constitutions. No welfare, healthcare, edu-care, Period! For anybody. No police state, meaning any substance you want to put in your body is nobody else’s business, unless you make a nuissance of yourself.

Think of what happened in the 1960’s. Mostly judges, but also Congress and the Executive forced away from We The People the power to require decent behaviour, nice neighborhoods and strong families, under the guise of “fairness” and against mainly “racism” but also the phony War on Poverty, then the War on Drugs. Tell me any of these things did other than destroy liberty, property and privacy?

At a minimum we would need to reverse nearly every court decision going back through the time of Lyndon Johnson, even Eisenhower, through the New Deal to the first Roosevelt’s term, and most laws and executive actions as well. In other words we need to set the legislative clock back over 100 years.

Then we have to deal with the War of Northern Aggression and the whole Reconstruction —the North’s first Nation Building program, did to the South and to state sovereignty in general.

You could even say the attack on Liberty began with the Whiskey Rebellion and the failure of We The People to, in Franklin’s words, be “vigilant” against it. Vigilant does NOT mean standing on the sidelines watching it happen. It has nearly the same Latin root as the word for “manhood” and “strength.” How dare the federal government come into my home and regulate and tax the whiskey I may produce for my own use, or to sell to neighbors? Now they regulate aspirin! Get the federal government OUT of all drugs and food, except for imports. That’s another story I’ll cover in the future.

Let localities regulate public moral behavior once again, even it it means angry mobs start lynching judge and politicians! Me? Oh boy, am I dangerous!

Mike Smith,
Chase City,

Readers can email me with comments:

or go to Michael H. Smith, my facebook page.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: