Ron Pauled Out

Recently, at RPF [link], someone stated that they were Ron Pauled out. What he meant by this is that he had so much enthusiasm when he first heard of Dr. Paul and his message that he fervently supported him. However, over the course of a few days, weeks or months, his support has waned.

I think that this may be a problem for several supporters and I think that it is an important issue to address. Many of Paul's supporters are angry. In fact, they've been characterized as the angry libertarian cats. This is clearly true especially in the face of blatant opposition such as the case with Ed Failor and the Iowa debates.

However, this is the wrong approach for the Paul supporters to take. At least, that is my humble opinion. Dr. Paul stated in a speech at "Ronstock" that he wanted his supporters to have fun. I wholeheartedly agree with the good doctor (surprise!) and think that the little comment he made should be taken to heart.

Many supporters take this election very, very seriously--and, rightly so. However, approaching the electoral process with anger and disdain is counter-productive and counter-intuitive. There are certain situations where fervent support for Dr. No is both necessary and encouraged--such as the situation with Ed Failor. However, at other times, the rabid attack and hatred that comes from the community is unhealthy and, at times, scary. For example, before the straw poll there were a few concerned citizens that went through a legal process to hold up the Straw Poll. While I disagree with what they did and how they associated themselves with the campaign, they went through proper channels. But, even more supporters of Dr. Paul were calling foul before the game even started. They were scary. Anyone that even suggested that the poll may not be rigged was assaulted verbally and pounded into submission. This is not healthy for the supporters or the campaign.

The Ron Paul Revolution is a slogan for the grassroots campaign with "love" highlighted. However, many of the supporters are failing to show love. This saddens me. The supporters that are so dedicated seem to miss half of Dr. Paul's message. Many of the supporters focus on the fact that Ron Paul is anti-government, anti-establishment. However, the other half of that coin is that Ron Paul is pro-individual, pro-respect, pro-love. I believe that the part of the message that everyone is missing is that Dr. Paul has a love, respect and admiration for each and every one of his supporters. Likewise, we should all love, respect and admire each other. Dr. Paul is a great leader that not only says the right things, he does the right things. We, his supporters, should do more to emulate our next President, Ron Paul.

The Philosophy of Liberty

It angers me when people (such as people that write for the Irregular Times) use the Constitution as a bolster for ridiculous claims even when the Constitution contradicts what they are saying, argues differently than what they are saying or, ultimately, just has no reference to their points.

It would be proper to suggest to those people to read the Constitution. However, the Constitution is vague enough that you have to actually understand the context of the Constitution. Required reading: Virginia Declaration of Rights, Declaration of Independence and John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Civil Government.

It saddens me that not enough people know enough about the Constitution to understand that these people are misusing it such a way. However, it is the responsibility of people that claim the be backed by the Constitution itself should spend more time understanding what the Constitution actually means.

The Purpose of this Blog

I haven't yet made a purpose statement. I thought that it would be useful for anyone who read the blog and for myself, as well. Each and every blog should have a purpose statement to focus their efforts.

Conservative Liberty was originally concocted as a platform to describe my seemingly outrageous, ultra-conservative ideals. However, I went off to college and lost interest in expressing my ideas. So, when I heard about Ron Paul, my political ideas were embodied in the great man that Ron Paul is. He reawakened by strong, conservative feelings.

So, in all effects, the purpose of this blog is to voice my conservative ideas. These ideas range from local government to state government to national government. Also, as a subpoint, this blog chronicles my involvement in campaigning for Ron Paul--the candidate that I endorse.

Flashback

The year: 1998.
The president: Bill Clinton.
The topic: War in Iraq.

I was browsing some of Dr. Ron Paul's weekly columns (which he is surprisingly disciplined in giving, I must say. It appears that he hasn't skipped a beat since August of 1997! That's nearly 10 years!). I came across an article that shows his position on the war before Bush ever took office. This clearly solidifies Dr. Ron Paul's assertions that the war was in motion before Sept. 11, 2001 and that the event was only used to accelerate the progress of the war.

Taking it to the streets: Part 4

Saturday, I spent much of my day on the south-east side of Indianapolis. I drove down there for a Ron Paul meet-up. It was fun.

Michael started off the meeting by giving a rundown of what Ron Paul had done since the group's last meet up. They last met after the second debates; however, this was my first meeting. Afterward, the members of the group started working and coming up with some ideas. Half of the group used stencils, spray paint, markers, etc. to create a whole slew of Ron Paul banners. We used cheap DuPont Homewrap for the medium to create our larger signs. It thought that that was a good idea.

The meeting was intended for the members to make signs. But, to the credit of the supporters enthusiasm, several of us, including me, walked to the busy intersection down the road and handed out fliers. We held up signs and weaved our way through the cars trying to inform as many people as possible about Dr. Ron Paul.

At first, I was a bit disheartened. Not many people wanted to hear of it, it just didn't matter to them! But, as the day went on, people seemed to be more and more receptive to it. We got several shoutouts supporting Rep. Paul and a few that claimed loyalty to other presidents (including Obama and Fred). I think the old lady that supported Fred Thompson was more starstruck than anything!

All in all, we probably had nearly a thousand people get to see the name Ron Paul and that there was support for him. We also handed out around 200 fliers. It was an exciting experience and helped support the good doctor!

Part 3
Part 2
Part 1

Technorati censors Ron Paul?

According to No Governor Anywhere [Link] Technorati has some fishy business going on. I went to the Technorati site and found the same things that he had.

I examined the source code and found that there is, indeed, something weird going on. Ron Paul's "spot" on the list has been replaced by:

<li class="e1">
<a href="/wtf?new&topic=" class="trk" title="Why is hot?">
<img src="http://static.technorati.com/static/css/img/icn/icon-wtf-off-small.png" alt="WTF: " />

</a>

<a href="/tag/" class="trk" title="See what people are saying about right now"> </a></li>

This seems very odd. I would guess that this is a server-side problem instead of a deliberate attempt to censor Ron Paul. However, you are allowed to your own opinion of the situation.

Edit: All Ron Paul references have been deleted from Technorati's front page. Again, I'm still hoping for the best and that Technorati is just having technical problems.

Edit2: The mystery continues. It seems that it is fluctuating from a full Ron Paul reference in correct form to having nothing to show for it (reducing the top 10 to a top 9). Very odd indeed and something that wouldn't be intentional. Though, sloppy hacking cannot be ruled out.

Edit3: Adding MORE to the "What the Fuck?" factor, when the Ron Paul shows up second on the "What's Hot?" list, an odd tag shows up in the "Popular" section. It says "wtf/ron-paul/2007/06/13/ron-paul-s-interview" and links to "wtf" tags. Also, I notice that the page to display a blog's authority has been updated. So, and I'm going to reiterate, I think that they updated the code for the server and fucked up something in there.

Final Edit/Update: Technorati is back to "normal" with a few updates. The only change to the front page is that the tag cloud no longer is "size-sensitive" but is, instead, alphabetized. Probably just some minor bugs while implementing new code. I'd have to say that doesn't constitute censorship. Yay! The blogosphere is still free.

Hitting the Streets for Ron Paul: Part 3

Tonight, I needed to get some cheese. No, not money or superfluous government spending. Nor is it an excretion for the body. I needed American cheese that came from the milk of cows that was then processed to become cheese. So, I went to WalMart.

I had some time; so, I thought, "Why not just stand outside for about an hour and promote Ron Paul outside of WalMart?" I did so. A half an hour, 50 'you are weird' looks and 1 conversation with a guy that knew who Ron Paul was later, I was confronted by an assistant manager of WalMart and told that I couldn't stand outside. She told me that I had to call the manager in the morning and ask permission. She was nice about it and wasn't trying to be mean. It was just company policy. I understood and left. I then went to Kroger and K-Mart and asked the managers if I could hold a sign supporting a presidential candidate outside. They, respectfully, told me that I couldn't do that. Although a bit disheartened that I couldn't support my candidate, I learned a few things about campaigning. Corporations aren't going to let you promote things on their property. Instead, you are better off promoting your views at a public location full of people.

In the near future, I will be going to a mall and trying my luck there. We also have a MeetUp on Saturday that I'm looking forward to.

Ron Paul answers tough questions on Tucker

I just finished watching Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson's show on MSNBC. Tucker asked Dr. Paul some pretty tough questions and I think the Ron Paul answered them well. One of the questions Tucker asked was in regard to Federal aid to the city of New Orleans. Rep. Paul stated that he wouldn't and cited Galveston, Texas as an example where the federal government need not to be involved.

Video to be updated when I see it.

Edit: Video uploaded on YouTube [Link]

Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson?

According to RonPaul2008's campaign at Eventful.com [Link], Ron Paul will be appearing on Tucker Carlson Thursday, June 14th at 4:00pm. I haven't heard anyone else talking about this, so take it with a grain of salt. It may be a mistake on the part of the campaign.

An Abbreviated List of Ron Paul Supporters

Here is an abbreviated list of the Founders, the men that are revered by the people of this country for their wisdom and courage, that would support Dr. Ron Paul's politics.

• Abraham Baldwin. US Congressman for 18 years. Has had 2 counties and a college named after him. Disagreed with a establishing a central bank.
  
• John Blair. Justice of the Supreme Court. Ruling led to the passage of the 11th Amendment. Believed in the principle of separation of powers.
  
• Jared Ingersoll. Former US Vice Presidential candidate. Supporter of states' rights.
  
• Nicholas Gilman. US Congressman for 10 years. Supporter of the rights of the "common man" and against governmental abuses of power.
  
• George Washington. First elected President of the United States. General. Et cetera. Against foreign interventionism.
  
• William Samuel Johnson. US Congressman for 2 years. President of Columnbia College. Against executive branch power (supported Congress's ability to review presidential appointments)
  
• James Madison. President. Congressman. Secretary of State. Et cetera. Against central bank. Strict adherence to the Constitution. Et cetera.
  
• Richard Spaight. US Congressman for 5 years. Opposed expanding the Federal government's powers.
  
• Charles Pickney. Governor. US Congressman for 5 years. Opposed establishment of a national bank and expansion of federal powers.
  
• Oliver Ellsworth. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. US Congressman. Supporter of states' rights.
  
• Elbridge Gerry. Vice President. Governor. US Congressman. Against expansion of federal government powers.
  
• George Mason. Held no position but wrote the basis for Madison's proposed Bill of Rights. Supported people's rights.
  
• Edmund Randolph. US Attorney General. US Secretary of State. Governor. Opposed expansion of federal power.
  
• Robert Yates. Influential statesman. Opposed expansion of federal power.
  

Again, this is an ABBREVIATED LIST of the Founders that would support Dr. Ron Paul. Several Founders were not included because they were "Federalists" who supported that establishment of a central bank and the expansion of federal powers. However, several of these Founders, I would surmise, would disagree with the extent that the Federal government's power has expanded to. Still, more were not added because of the lack of information on them when I was doing research. I feel that this list is adequate to get my point across.

All of this information can be checked at Wikipedia.

Edit: This takes into account what that a Framer is someone that signed the Constitution. The other "Framers" on Wikipedia are actually "Founders" and not "Framers."

Blog redesign and Colbert

The blog has been redesigned. The guy with the poster is Chris, not me. My car, though, has the picture of the sign on it.

I watched the Colbert Report tonight. It was entertaining and Dr. Ron Paul showed passion, enjoyment and true belief with his message on the show. Once again, the man impressed me. There is a YouTube video of the interview [link].

Ron Paul at Google

There is an unconfirmed report from a LiveJournal user that Ron Paul will be on Google's campus on July 13th! The user is a member of the "Bay Area Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group" [link]and they plan to have a rally afterward. I attempted to contact Google's Press Center to confirm the reports. All lines were busy, unfortunately. I'll try again later.

Vegas says: Ron Paul has a chance

According to SportsBook.Com, a website that deals with all things gambling and has been running some Presidential odds.

According to Vegas, Ron Paul has a 1 in 7 chance of winning. Granted, he is still behind Rudy (6-5), McCain (2-1), Fred Thompson (4-1) and Mitt Romney (5-1). But! This shows that there isn't a 'big three' anymore. In fact, there seems to be a clear distance behind Ron Paul with the next highest starting at 15-1 (I'm discounting Newt. He isn't running). According to Vegas, he is in the "first tier."

That's not all! Again, according to the same site, he has a 15 to 1 chance of winning the Presidency! Now, for many people that write him off as someone who couldn't win the Republican primary, let alone the election, this must be a surprise.

Also, Vegas has a tradition of being more correct and representative of the general population than any sort of 'scientific polls.' You can find all of this information at SportsBook.

Taking it to the Streets: Part 2, Davy Crockett and Santa Clause support Ron Paul!

Today I went to visit my grandmother in the small town of Lizton. My little cousin was having her last softball game and I went to watch. Inspired by Dan and Chris, I made a poster board that I hung from my neck right before going to the softball game. With the paint still slightly wet and a doubled-up peice of nylon string around my neck, I went off into the world.

Now, you must understand, I am not one to do this. I don't crave attention. I am a recluse in public settings. This took a lot of courage for me to do this.

Everyone stared. Some gave me sidelong glances. Some looked at me with a confused look "President? Who's that?" Some giggled. My cousin said that her friends called me the "Weird Guy." I'm glad. I was noticed. People read the sign.

Mostly, I talked to my grandfather during the game. He pressed me about every issue (unfortunately, I didn't have fliers). Luckily, I was able to tell him with some confidence everything that Ron Paul stood for.

I also talked to another guy. He was from the other team's town. An old man with a big belly and a long white beard, he reminded me of Santa Clause. He talked to me about Ron Paul and he seemed very receptive to Dr. Paul's ideas and platform, even though he called all politicians "liars." I told him that I agreed with him but that Ron Paul isn't a politician, he's a representative of the people.

I went on to describe one of my favorite anecdotes about Ron Paul were Dr. Paul fought the Congress about Reagan's $30,000 gold medal. He smiled and told me a similar anecdote about Davy Crockett. So, I decided to do some research on it when I got home. Indeed, Crockett gave a famous speech to the Congress about how it was "unconstitutional" to be so charitable with taxpayers' money. Like Ron Paul, he supported the Congress paying for it out of their own pocket. Like today, none of them went for it. Source: [Wikipedia]

Also, I got someone that yelled out "Paul Wall." I don't know if that was an insult or just immaturity (sounded like it came from a high school kid). I just don't know what it means. Good thing I don't care much :) The best part about this is that I don't feel like its a burden, I feel like it is helping my people skills and I enjoy it! I will definitely be doing this in the future. Hopefully, I can hook up with one of the other Human Billboards.

GOP Members are wary of their party's direction

The NYTimes [http://www.nytimes.com] has a recent article that states that "GOP Voters Voice Anxieties on Party's Fate." The Times attempted to reach a broad base of Republican voters for this poll and asked these conservative voters what they thought about the party.

The results were contradictory to scientific polls and the analysis that network (MSM) analysts are pressing.

According to the article:

Republican primary voters have a definite idea of what they are looking for in a candidate: They want a presidential contender who will make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions, who opposes same-sex marriage and who will push for more tax cuts, the poll found.

The article also states that:

Compared with the Democrats, Republicans appear far less happy with their choice of candidates for 2008 and are still looking for someone who can improve the party’s prospects, the poll found.

So, in essence, the voters want change. They see a problem with the direction that the Republican party is heading. They realize that it has strayed from its roots and has taken a direction that supports the neo-cons.

As for the abortion and same-sex marriage issues, I believe that most Republicans will be receptive to the "power of the people" and "leave it to the states" position of Ron Paul. This claim is just a guess. I also believe that the questions posed toward the Republican voters would be much more effective if the pollsters were no looking for questions that apply to the perceived top-tier candidates (they asked questions like "Do you think a Mormon could win?" "Do you think someone with multiple divorces could win?" "Would you vote for Guiliani or McCain at this point?"). Now, I'm not going to call the pollsters conspirators, but I think that questions aimed at trying to find out if Republicans support the message of Ron Paul would prove that his message is appealing to them.

You can find this article at the NY Times

Use the 'bugmenot' username/password of dupafly/bugme

Hitting the Streets for Ron Paul

As someone who had read my earlier posts would know, I am a member of Hoosiers for Ron Paul [H4RP]. This organization is a group that supports Ron Paul for the presidency. We have a sizable group of people that keeps on growing. At the time of this posting, there are 92! members in a single sub-group of H4RP (called Ron Paul for 'Indy'-pendence).

A member of H4RP and the Indy sub-group, Chris, took to the city streets of the beautiful Indianapolis. He wore a sign on a string that stated "Ron Paul 2008.com For President!" He walked around the downtown area and handed out fliers to people. Many people approached Chris and he told them about Ron Paul. He says that many people are receptive to the Ron Paul message. Here's a YouTube video of Chris:



Also, another man from H4RP has started doing a similar thing on his lunch breaks. He has donned himself a "human billboard" and started walking the Circle. He, too, says that people are receptive to his message and that he only gets one rude comment a day. There have been debates between people on the streets and Dan, but he tries to stay positive and does not 'trash talk' anyone.

Chris and Dan are my heroes at this point. They have taken the initiative themselves to put the ideas out there--just like Dr. Ron Paul has done at his debates. Let these two supporters of the Revolution be an inspiration to us all to get on there and hit the streets!

AMBER Alert Discussion

This is just a partial transcript from a forum on MySpace. In this transcript, I believe that I embody the values that Ron Paul holds dear when defending his vote on the matter. His first post:

In what would seem like a no brainer, this Republican candidate president has voted as if he doesn't have a brain.

Many know about the amber alert bill? It's basically a bill that would protect children nation wide if they are abducted or taken by people who want to do harm to the children of this nation. It could stop a child molester from harming kids.

There is actually a current Republican candidate who voted against this! His name is Ron Paul.

Some say he voted against it because it's unconstitutional. I thought molesting and abducting children violated our children's constitutional rights.

I guess this isn't true if you're Ron Paul

Ron Paul would rather protect the rights of child molesters over the rights of children.

I responded:

So, here is how it works. In the Constitution, there is a clearly defined 'levels of government.' There are local governments, there are state governments and there is the federal government. The federal government has certain duties assigned to it by the constitution. The document also states that power not enumerated (that is, specifically stated) by the Constitution fall to the States and/or local governments (Amendment #10, Part of the Bill of Rights).

The Constitution gives no such authority to the federal government to perform any of the duties assigned with issuing an "Amber Alert." I think that Dr. Paul, or anyone else for that matter, would agree that the Amber Alert system is a positive system. However, Dr. Paul and people that adhere to the Constitution (which, by the way, is the Supreme Law of the land) would argue that it is not an issue that the Federal government should take on but, instead, the state governments should be in control of.

Now, I know most of this is 'political hubbub' and may seem too 'technical.' I mean, surely, the Founding Fathers would issue the Amber Alert themselves, right?! Unfortunately, I think that you're wrong in that assumption. You see, small, federal bills and laws have, over time, created a monstrosity of a government that many of the founding fathers would disapprove of.

And, if you want further logical reasoning, I will present an argument that I believe would not be too different from James Madison (author of the Bill of Rights, former Vice President, former President, Founding Father and, altogether, a very important man). James Madison wrote several essays in 1786 and 1787 that contributed to the whole of what we called today the Federalist Papers. These papers outlined support for our current (albeit, no amendments) Constitution. Jimmy stated in one of these Federalist papers that the Federal system MUST be a Federal system that delegated most of its power to the states because the states were closer to the people. Furthermore, he went on to state that the diversification between states would split the country apart at its seams if it were not accommodated to delegate such decisions to the state governments (VERY good example: abortion). Instead, states shall be their own 'pockets of democracy' that would provide specific needs and services to their citizens. Also, certain states would have certain tendancies (Mass. [Gay Rights] and Texas [Gun Rights]) that would further attract citizens to that state because of its policy. However, all of these pockets of democracy would be protected until the Rule of Law of the Constitution that outlined basic rights AND a strong national defense--which, along side commerce regulation, was the primary reason for adopting the Constitution over the Articles of Confederacy.

It was a long, winded response, I know, but I have to provide clear, factual information to prove the point that, according to Constitutional Law, Ron Paul did the right thing by not voting for the Amber Alert

He replied this afternoon, saying:

Listen to me buddy. I am all for smaller government and following the laws.

However, if someone votes not to protect our children, that does not sit well with me at all!

You seriously think that it was constitutional to vote against protecting our children? Wow.

Do you have Children? Do you have brothers and sisters?

Have you EVER experienced the horror of having a child or sibling disappear? Even if it is just for a few minutes?

If not, then you have no idea why Ron pisses me off as much as he does!

Ron Paul is a man who votes against Amber Alerts, against funding the war, he has never decided what party he is a member of, he blamed our government for 9/11, do I need to go on, or do you catch my drift?

Finally, my most recent post, enlightening on the power of the people:

First of all, your antagonistic debating style isn't going to get you anywhere. Also, your pathos-strewed arguments have no logical or moral backing! You are appealing to your own and your readers emotions by misconstruing a "No" vote against a bill as an attack on children when, instead, it was a moral and logical decision to uphold the Constitution.

I agree with you: the Amber Alert system protects our children and that is a good thing. However, not only is it unconstitutional (read the Constitution), but it would be a much better! system if the states were to run it themselves. For example, one state (lets say Montana) has far less Amber alerts than another (lets say New York). The citizens of Montana would be paying less for those Amber Alerts and they could personalize it as to display which county the child was last seen in and, if the child were on his or her way to Mexico, they could also provide information to Canadian Law Enforcement. However, the citizens of New York may have to pay more for their system. They would also want a much more details Amber Alert system for the New York City area--instead of just saying "in Manhattan," the Amber Alert could provide information based on major street intersections (think Wall Street and South Street). This gives more pertinent information based on states.

Also, it gives YOU more of a voice in the operation of the Amber Alert in your state! In Alaska (I assume that's where you live) there are 700,000 people. In the United States, there are 350,000,000 people. By odds, you have more of a say in your state. So, if you wanted to support more funding for improving upon the current Amber Alert system, your vote and your say matters more at a state or local level.

Rep. Ron Paul is about given power back to the people--the power that the national government has robbed from us. The power has been slowly consolidating itself in Washington since Hamilton began the Federal Bank and it is now time for us to use our power of revolution to win it back!

P.S. No, I don't have children. I have 3 brothers and 1 sister. I recall one time that me and my brother were out hiking in the woods at Dale Hollow Lake. We somehow just wandered away from each other (he was around 10, then, and I was 13). It was a frightening experience, to say the least. However, I am not prepared to give MY SOVEREIGNTY up to the national government in order for them to post warnings on the television. I still don't understand why him telling you that he is going to give you all the power in the world so that you can make all of the Amber Alerts that you want pisses you off. I'm sorry. I just don't get that.

Hoosiers for Ron Paul

I live in Indiana and wanted to get involved with supporting Ron Paul on the streets. So, I signed up online at MeetUp and found this group called Hoosiers for Ron Paul. I found that there are 90! people in Indiana signed up and willing to be activists for the Ron Paul campaign. To me, that is an astounding number. I figured that the campaign wouldn't be up and running yet but, I found, that the campaign had started long before I had even heard of Ron Paul. I am presently delighted and tickled to death. This Saturday, June 16th, on Founding Fathers' Day, H4RP will meet in downtown Indianapolis to make signs, posters, flyers and other promotional items. I will be attending the event myself and hope to familiarize myself with the other members.

Hoosiers for Ron Paul Website
RonPaul.MeetUp.Com

A Response to "Anti Ron Paul" types

This is an article in response to a certain type of people that feel the need to discredit Ron Paul. Many of speculated as to why they do this: some say that they are afraid of Ron Paul's truths, some say that they are unscrupulously attempting to remove support from Ron Paul and yet others suggest that they just don't "get it." On such person wrote an article on MySpace under the name www.myspace.com/ronpaulsucks. He states that Ron Paul is against Amber Alert.

I'm going to give a brief history lesson about the Constitution ("Consti..what?.. Constitu.. Constitution?" says Jon Stewart). In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed and sent off to King George III. In 1777, the Articles of Confederation was established and the first national government for the 13 colonies was established. The war with Britain ended in 1783 and the now United States was free from the tyranny of the King.

Unfortunately, the Articles weren't working so well. Post-war conflicts between states sparked tension and, in one case, the seizing of a town hall by local farmers. Things were not good for the Confederacy (not the civil war one, either). Instead, the Framers created the Constitution that would go on to be the basis for the United States of America.

The Constitution was not well received by everyone (and, in fact, met heavy opposition in some states that led to it almost NOT being ratified). There were several Anti-Federalists that believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government. The Federalists argued back that there needed to be a strong, central government to handle affairs between states and other nations. Both, however, agreed that a strong federal government had no business in people's personal lives.

So, obviously, the document ended up being ratified and I am glad that it was. Unfortunately, most people don't understand this most essential document that all Americans should be required to read.

Specific to Ron Paul that everyone seems to have trouble comprehending is the federal system laid out by the Constitution. The Framers knew that a strong central government with all of the power in its hands would be slow, ineffective and dangerous. So, instead, it decided to delegate most of the federal government's power to the states or the people themselves. Ron Paul believes strongly in the Constitution and, thus, Federalism. For example, Ron Paul voted against the Amber Alert bill in Congress. "ronpaulsucks" claims that Ron did that because he was trying to protect sex offenders. Instead, Ron Paul was upholding the values of the Constitution because no where in the Constitution does it allow for an Amber Alert to be created. Instead, it is a power delegated to the states.

This is why Ron Paul voted nay; this is why I would have voted nay. A simple history lesson about your Constitution would do every single American a favor.

My Presidential Candidate

All geared up for the 2008 Presidential Elections about a day after Bush's re inauguration, I thought that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was my man. He was an experienced politician that, I thought, stood by his principles. He was a man that, despite the neo-conservative Republicans being in power, believed in small government and the liberties of every single United States citizen.

In late 2006, I found out that I was wrong. Sen. McCain changed his stance on the war and even started to support the Administration's war policies. Worse! He completely ignored any infringement of citizens' rights in the bills that he passed. I was discouraged and figured that I had lost my presidential candidate for the 2008 election.

Enter summer boredom and a chance article catching my attention on Digg. I read the article and find out that these guys are vehemently supporting the guy named Ron Paul. Who is Ron Paul? I researched him.

Ron Paul is an experienced Representative of Texas. He previously ran for President in 1988 as a Libertarian and joined the Republican party in 1996 to win his seat. However, Ron Paul has been sort of a lone maverick in the Congress and not many people know why. I do. Rep. Paul votes according to the Constitution, according the Rule of Law that we have so forgotten in this country. He votes in favor of the Constitution was amazing persistence and his views coincide with mine. This man is my political hero.

It just so happens that he's running for President in the GOP Party. Ron Paul is my Presidential Candidate.