As I have expressed my extreme dislike for McCain (voting for him is like voting for Hitler over Stalin because, well, I'm not Jewish and after all he only killed 5 million compared to Stalin's 20), I have been told that to vote for anyone but a Republican is "wasting" my vote.  On the contrary, voting for any one of the three liberal globalist and hoping that it magically turns into something better is throwing away my vote.

I only get one vote, and with that vote I get to express my desires for the nation.  With that one vote, I have an opportunity to change the direction of the country toward positive change. 

The old adage here applies: only a fool repeats the same folly and expects a different result.  We have been duped into voting for the lesser of two  evils for two decades now, and we have a huge national debt, involvement in two apparently unending wars while considering starting a third, a free falling dollar, and government intrusion of our liberties.  Federal spending is absolutely out of control, and the government bail outs through "tax breaks" and stimulus packages are only making the financial situation worse while also sending the dollar even lower.  Do we honestly think that Clinton, Obama, or McCain are going to bring about any improvement in these things?

I am still hoping that by some miracle have an opportunity to see Ron Paul on the ballot come November.  Barring that, I will be carefully evaluating the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates.  I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils and will instead vote for the man or woman who best represents my views.  To do anything less would be to waste my vote.

As the dollar continues to fall and the spotlight is shown upon McCain, Obama, and Clinton, the evidence is growing that my decision to support Ron Paul was a solid one. He is the only one out of the bunch who has been predicting the economic troubles we are experiencing since last May (actually, for the past couple decades). His character is also becoming increasingly golden when compared to the opportunistic and duplicitous nature of those around him. He has stuck to his guns through thick and thin clinging to the ideas of justice, honesty, transparency, and sound money even as the Republican Party sold themselves to the highest bidder.

Really, is there any other good choice at this point for the office of the President? Who can match Ron Paul for his character, his understanding of our financial crisis, and his steadfastness to conservative values?

He does not pander to lobbyists. In fact, they no longer try to buy him because they know that he cannot be bought. He is a true patriot who sees his position in government as an opportunity to serve the people of this great nation rather than seek personal gain. This is why he has rejected the congressional pension and receives no corporate campaign donations.

Despite what the media continues to force feed us, this election is far from over. McCain need not be our nomination. In fact, we are heading toward a brokered convention where most of the delegate votes are up from grabs. We need to make the choice to preserve freedom and save our country from greed, corruption, and lies.

We need to choose Ron Paul.

I think we conservatives need to consider a few questions:

1) Why have the true conservatives (Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, even Fred Thompson) been given minimal questions and time in the debates?

2) Why was McCain's campaign able to suddenly come to life when he had no money or momentum and his campaign seemed to be dead in the water? Why did the press suddenly start covering him?

3) Why did Huckabee suddenly get pushed forward by the press? He too had no money, but received millions of dollars worth of free press.

4) Why has the mainstream media not told you that there was a caucus in Louisiana last week, and that Ron Paul may well have finished first if they had not made half his supporters use provisional ballots (including registered delegates!)?

5) Why was all of the focus on Romney and McCain before even a single vote had been cast toward the actual nomination?

6) Why do we seem to be stuck with three contenders that are all at the liberal end of the Republican spectrum?

7) Why does the press not want a true conservative in the White House?  And why are we trusting the liberal media to report fairly on our elections and conduct fair and accurate polling when they have been against conservatives for years?

8) Why have so many primary rules changed this year? For example, the Montana open primary has been changed to a closed caucus for only Republican leaders for the first time, AND NO ONE KNEW ABOUT IT.

9) Why are we being forced to use Diabold voting machines when they have been proven to be unreliable?  As a computer programmer, I can tell you that designing a voting system is not rocket science.  Amazon.com handles millions of transactions a day without error, so why can they not design a system to tabulate a simple vote accurately?  Either they are incompetent programmers, or they are trying to make the machines do more than simply count votes.

10) Why did Nevada changes their caucus rules multiple times and give out misinformation just prior to holding their caucuses?  Why did they treat Ron Paul with such disrespect when he submitted a complaint about the process?

Serious and intelligent people need to look back over this past year and answer these questions. Anyone who has really been paying attention should be seeing a lot of red flags. SOMETHING is going on here, and I believe it goes far beyond Ron Paul's campaign. It has effectively shut down Duncan Hunter as well. It was only because Ron Paul had significant Internet support that he has been able to survive as long as he has.

Our nation is under direct threat, and it has nothing to do with Islamic terrorists. The question is why and by whom?

There is a very large elephant in the room.  It threatens everything that we Americans hold dear:  our country, our families, our very lives.  It is not terrorism.  It is not "Islamofascists".  It is our own government and its out of control spending. 

This is the big elephant in the corner that the other candidates will barely even admit exists. The baby-boomers will start retiring this January whereupon they start collecting Social Security. As they continue to get older, their medical costs will start taxing Medicare. We do not have the money to pay for the future payments we owe for Social Security and Medicare. It has long since been spent on other things, and due to the low birthrate as well as the 40 million babies we have slaughtered in the past four decades, we do not have enough younger workers to make up the difference. The chief economists of our nation estimate that we are facing a $40 trillion dollar debt just to pay off these two programs alone.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who will not only admit that the elephant exists but has a real plan to address it. By cutting back our military and foreign aid spending (around $1 trillion per year) and ending the Iraq War, we can focus on economic reform, government cutbacks, and a serious effort to not only balance the budget but actually start eliminating our debt.

If you don't believe me, I encourage you to watch the following and consider what the other candidate intend to do about it.  We need serious reform, and only one candidate has the courage and conviction to see it done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8

Ron Paul 2008

There is no denying that the world is full of problems.  From the recent developments in Myanmar to the violence in Darfur to the ongoing conflict in Iraq, we continue to see the rise of evil people who oppress their fellow man.  In light of these events, it is easy for us to want to step in and "fix" the problems.  In Thursday's presidential debate, Ron Paul was attacked for saying that he would not become involved in Darfur.  Is he insensitive to the problems around the world?  Doesn't he want to help the suffering and aid the needy? 

The issue is not about caring.  It is about understanding which battles should be fought.  If we attempted to fix every problem in the world, we would be spread so thin that we could accomplish very little and bankrupt ourselves in the process.  There are several key points that must be considered when addressing federal aid and military assistance around the world.

1) We are often not wanted

Many of the conflicts around the world are caused by grudges and feuds that have raged for hundreds if not thousands of years.  Just like domestic disputes between couples, the combatants resent any outside interference in what is to them a very personal matter.  We often do not understand the intricacies involved in the internal politics, and our misguiding actions can often destabilize the region instead of solving the problem.  This misunderstanding of the history and politics also makes it very difficult to ascertain which side of the conflict is really in the wrong and which side deserves our support.  In many of these civil wars, both sides are responsible for atrocities committed against the other and choosing sides becomes more a case of political convenience rather than moral outrage.

2) Our federal aid is often ineffective

The aid and assistance that we send to foreign countries usually ends up in the hands of those currently in power in that country.  Federal aid is required to go through diplomatic channels that results in the vast majority of aid going into the hands of the military and governments of foreign countries rather than reaching the country's citizens where it is most needed.  These resources are often used as a weapon against their people by requiring subservience to get meager scraps from the government table.

There is also inherent in federal spending the waste and corruption that has become all to prevalent in Washington D.C.  How much of the foreign aid becomes corporate subsidies for American companies working in the region?  For example, as the Sudan and other regions in Africa tear themselves apart, the oil companies continue to rake in profits in well protected and maintained facilities.  These companies are often supported by our government to "improve the economy" of these nations, but in fact, the average citizens see little to no benefit.  A few national leaders and the owners of these corporations are the only ones who grow fat and wealthy off the oil money.  I don't think anyone would see making the rich richer as an effective foreign policy.

3) Our involvement can be seen as arrogant, hypocritical, and damaging.

We Americans have had a reputation for arrogance and ignorance for quite a while now.  Even at our best, a lot of this reputation was deserved -- and not always for bad reasons.  Our government system has been very effective, and our liberties have given us some reason to boast about the virtues of American freedom.  However, we need to remember that we are not perfect, and the other countries of the world are very cognizant of that fact.  It does seem rather hypocritical that we are pushing the virtues of democracy when our own citizens are so disenfranchised by the process that we have less than half of our citizens turning out to vote in our elections.  Our foreign policy seems to strut around as if only we know the correct solutions and can solve the problems of the world.  We claim a moral high ground even as we pick and choose our battles based on selfish monetary or political gain as opposed to any true moral outrage or justification.  This fuels anti-American sentiment as our actions are very often hypocritical and cause untold hardships for many people who are hurt along the way.  Let us not forget that Saddam Hussein was put in power via actions of the United States government in Iraq.  In a sense, we are responsible for the atrocities he committed in Iraq because we gave him the ability to do so.

A study of American history will reveal example after example of suffering and war caused by American foreign policies.  Who are we to criticize other countries about mistreating ethnic groups when we have our own sordid past with American Indian oppression and detainment camps for Americans of Japanese descent during World War II?  Do we have any right to claim a moral high ground when our own history is replete with failures and prejudice?  We need to remember that we too are human with all of the frailties and failings common to all men.

So what should we do?  The solution is not to isolate ourselves from the world.  There are problems in the world that need our help.  There are starving children around the world that need to be fed.  There are oppressed people who desperately need help.  We cannot sit idly by while they suffer and die.  However, the best solution is not federal.  In foreign aid as in most things, the best solution is personal.  In personal charitable giving, Americans are the most generous people in the world.  Further, charitable organizations are often far more effective at getting aid and assistance directly to the people who need it the most.  They can often bypass the governments in ways that our federal government can't, and the presence of personnel on the ground in these countries gives them the ability to understand the true nature of the problems far better than our bureaucrats in Washington D.C.

This is the position of Ron Paul.  Instead of relying on the government to try to address problems around the world, he wants to empower us as individuals to get involved.  By allowing us to keep our money by not paying income tax, it frees us to spend that money on the issues that matter most to us in the way that we see fit.  Talk the the citizens of Louisiana and Mississippi to see who was most effective in reaching out and helping them in their needs after Katrina.  Private charity groups and churches were far better at getting the money and resources where they were most needed than the federal government, and the same rule applies to foreign aid as well.

As the saying goes, if you want a job done, you have to do it yourself.  While private aid may not avoid all of the pitfalls listed above, it goes a long way toward that goal by bypassing the greed and corruption that inherently comes with bureaucracy and big government.

Come join the Ron Paul Revolution and find out about the power of a free people.  Come rediscover what made America great in the first place:  we, the people.  RonPaul2008.com

Here is what Ron Paul has to say about Christianity:

"I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God."

That is one of the strongest Christian statements I have heard from a politician in a long time, and better yet, it is backed up by a strong, consistent life in the public arena.  He has stood the test of time and has proved his faith through his works.  Better yet, he lets his actions speak louder than his words so that even some atheists admire his devotion.

He goes on to explain how this relates to his policies:

"My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator. I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle. In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success. It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life."

And this is why Ron Paul has me excited about politics for the first time in a long time.  He is a man with real convictions who practices what he preaches and speaks up against problems in our culture even when they are not popular.

If you have never heard of Ron Paul, I encourage you to research his ideas and the reasoning behind them.  However you choose to vote next year, make sure that it is an educated decision.


The complete article can be found here. 

While all of the candidates are trying to identify themselves with Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul is the only one who really is a Reagan conservative.  He was one of only 4 congressmen to support Ronald Reagan when he ran for president in 1976.  His belief in personal liberties and small government resonate with the platform for which Reagan is so beloved.  And unlike his opponents, his convictions on these issues run deep with a consistent voting record over 20 years as a US representative spanning four decades of public service.

I have voted Republican since 1992 when I first was able to vote, but I feel betrayed by George Bush and indeed the entire Republican party in the last 8 years.  While campaigning on smaller government, they have only increased spending, created new large bureaucracies, and taken away our constitutional liberties.  I was beginning to wonder if should even remain a Republican as they no longer bear much resemblance to the party of liberty and fiscal responsibility I remembered and voted for and their Contract with America.

That was until I saw Ron Paul.  Here is a man that not only preaches traditional conservative values -- he has lived them consistently and in the face of opposition by often being the only voice of dissent.  He has consistently voted against increasing the size of government.  He shows fiscal responsibility in both his politics and his own personal life.  He has a squeaky clean personal life which is refreshing after Clinton and several of our current Republican candidates.  He has the most grounded pro-life stance of any of the Republicans, and he is a strong Christian without flaunting his religion.  Unlike the other Republicans, instead of talking about Christian values, he lives them.

And now, when we finally have a candidate who speaks the truth and has an impeccable character, the Republican party is trying to silence him.  They ridicule him and his supporters saying that he cannot win.  They work to exclude him from debates.  They refuse to even mention him in their writings.  No one said a word about his landslide victories in the New Hampshire and Alabama straw polls.

The press and the Republican leadership are completely out of touch with what today's younger voters are looking for.  They are looking for people of true integrity and courage.  We have been lied to for decades, and we are tired of dishonest politicians.  We are starving for someone whose yes is yes and whose no is no.  The republicans had our hopes in 1994, but they so quickly lost their way once they gained power. 

The Republican party leadership better sit up and pay attention.  They are at an important crossroads.  Their support is waning rapidly -- just look at the low turnout in recent straw polls.  As I said, I have been a strong supporter of the Republican party since childhood (raised as a conservative Republican who studied Reagan politics even as a child).  Right now, I am disgusted with where they have gone.  Why do they ignore the immigration problems?  Why do they ignore the impending collapse of Medicare and Social Security?  Why are they trying to legislate morality while their own lives are filled with immorality, adultery, and deception?  Why does it seem that all they care about is clinging to their power base?

Ron Paul is attracting people from all over the political spectrum, and he is infusing new life into the Republican party.  However, the Republican leadership seems to be actively trying to push him out of the way by keeping him out of the debates and refusing to address the issues that he raises.  If they continue down this road, they will lose these new supporters from Ron Paul that could have been embraced into the party  They do not realize that instead of attracting the youth, by wrongfully restricting Ron Paul's campaign, they are in fact alienating those youth and they may never get them back.  If they would simply address the issues and ideas that Ron Paul is bringing to the table, they could bring in a whole new generation of Republicans -- even if Ron Paul were to not win the nomination.

American's youth have been raised to be political cynics.  We can see through the lies and smell the hypocrisy.  If you truly want to attract the youth in America, you need to address the issues that we care about.  You need to find solutions to that huge bill we will have to pay once the baby boom generation is gone.  You need to address a policy that encourages illegal immigration and discourages the legal immigration.  You need to allow debate and introspection on a foreign policy that now has a 70% disapproval rating from the American people.  Most importantly, you need to speak truth, and you need to speak it plainly.

Right now, the only candidate (Republican or Democrat) who is doing this is Ron Paul.