Nostradamus, Anti-Christs and the Rush to the Apocalypse

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Nov. 1st, 2007.

I think it's human nature to want to know the future. People wonder and worry about everything from whether or not it will rain tomorrow to what life's going to be like a hundred years from now. It's not so hard to predict something that might happen a minute from now, or an hour, or tomorrow's weather, it is much more difficult to predict what will happen next year, or next decade, or next century. Still, people have a tendency to want to know these things. There's much uncertainty in the future and by believing that one psychic or another can foresee it may help allay some of the worry people naturally feel when uncertainty is involved.

Nostradamus was a man who many believe could see into the future. According to some experts on his writings, he made a number of predictions about our current era. It is said that he predicted the coming of three anti-Christs, the first being Napoleon, the second be Hitler, and the third being an as yet undetermined individual. According to many Nostradamus scholars the third anti-Christ, when he finally shows up, will bring about an extraordinary amount of death and destruction and maybe even start in motion apocalyptic events and the end of the world. There has been much speculation as to who this third anti-Christ might be and I've seen more than a few Nostradamus scholars on television speculate that he may have meant Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. These speculations are one of those things that make me go hmmm.

As it happens, I watched a program a couple of nights back about a lost book supposedly written by Nostradamus. After two hours of looking at childish drawings that could have depicted just about anything and being told what to think about them, we were more or less told that Nostradamus predicted that time, or the world as we know it, would come to an end in the year 2012 when the sun aligns with the galactic center, just like the Mayans had. To me, this conclusion was a stretch, even with the bias evident in the reasoning used and the evidence presented. Now, I'm no expert on Nostradamus, but I am interested in his writings and I have studied them a bit. I find the position that Nostradamus was predicting modern events a little hard to believe. Keep in mind that I have a proclivity to believe in psychic abilities and the paranormal and while I find many of his quatrains interesting and possibly more than just coincidental, I also find them sufficiently vague enough to be interpreted in a variety of ways. It seems to me that it wouldn't be a stretch that some might interpret Nostradamus' work and use the interest he generates in a way to support an agenda or point of view they might have.

As an example, we can examine the concept of the anti-Christ. Nostradamus is said to have predicted the coming of three anti-Christs, as I stated earlier. But if Napoleon and Hitler are to be considered anti-Christs, shouldn't other despots been considered anti-Christs as well? Certainly Joseph Stalin was at least as much a murderer as Adolf Hitler. Pol Pot gave Napoleon a run for the money when it came to killing. And all those mentioned may have been outdone by Mao Zedong, who some blame for the peacetime deaths of tens of millions, and he was from the east. Couldn't he have been the third anti-Christ Nostradamus spoke of? Of course if he was, that would not suit those who are in power today and want to wage a war against terror. These people want to convince as many others as possible to support their efforts and will use whatever propaganda they can in order to do so.

All this talk about anti-Christs and the end of the world leads me to ask, why are we as a society so fascinated with the apocalypse? Why do we seem to be in such a hurry to witness it? What drives an individual to hope for apocalyptic events to occur? Are so many that anxious to meet their maker? Are so many honestly wishing to see and endure all the pain and suffering that would accompany such events? Have they even thought of it in those terms? Are there so many that are so egotistical that they would wish such events upon the population just so they would be proven right? It makes one wonder about mankind's priorities. It seems to me that we as a race have already been through enough apocalypses to last hundreds or thousands of lifetimes. It seems to me that we have already fought the battle of Armageddon too many times to count and God has simply chosen not to show up, or perhaps he has shown up inside every soldier on every battlefield, as has Satan. I have heard it said that we each create Heaven or Hell right here on this plane of existence. I have heard it said that there is a little piece of divinity in each and every one of us. Perhaps it is up to the individual whether the good or evil divinity surfaces in any given situation, and this could be especially true when under great stress.

So, many people believe that the year 2012 will bring about apocalyptic events. They live in fear (or perhaps in anticipation) of these events. Why is it that more people don't take a different point of view? Why is it that more of us can't believe that by the year 2012 the world will be at peace, that the fighting will have ceased, that conflict between people will be resolved in a more civil manner, and that we will all treat each other fairly and with kindness and respect? Perhaps Nostradamus' third anti-Christ has already come and gone and we missed it. Perhaps it is now up to us to begin the era of peace that is to follow. Perhaps if we stopped believing the Earth can only support so many of us and we started helping each other we would find that we can all live in harmony in this world. Perhaps if we all started believing wondrous times await us in the future and stopped believing the apocalypse is inevitable, perhaps then we would turn a corner. There's really only one way to find out.

A War of Words: The RedState Decision to Ban Ron Paul Discussion

This article originally appeared in americanchronicle.com on Oct. 26th, 2007

The RedState blog has decided to ban discussion of Ron Paul to its members that have been on for less than six months. The reasoning is that those who have accounts less than six months old that “shill” for Ron Paul must be philosophically libertarian and not philosophically republican. Now, I don’t have an account with RedState and never would. It is a privately owned blog, so I believe that the owner should be able to make whatever rules he wants, which is the way anyone philosophically libertarian should believe. So why should I concern myself with this issue? Well, perhaps I shouldn’t, but I thought it might be fun to examine exactly what the republican philosophy should be and whether or not it can jibe with the libertarian one. I also thought it might be fun to see if the decision to ban Ron Paul discussions is a fundamentally sound one. After all, Ron Paul appears to be gaining speed and support, so pretty soon the Republicans that don’t like him might have to split off and form their own party.

Let’s start by looking at the libertarian philosophy. The word libertarian comes from the root word liberty. Looking up the word liberty in a dictionary yields quite a few results. Most of these definitions have to do with the concepts of freedom from control and the rights of individuals to engage in certain activities. I don’t think we need to go too deep into these definitions as most people understand liberty. I think the libertarian philosophy is pretty straight forward. In a nutshell, I think the libertarian philosophy can be summed up as the belief in liberty. So, the question is, do Republicans believe in liberty? I should think so. Apparently, however, one Leon H. Wolf and some of his cohorts don’t believe in liberty. Here’s what he posted: http://www.redstate.com/blogs/leon_h_wolf/2007/oct/22/attention_ron_paul_supporters_life_is_really_not_fair

Okay, no big deal, right? Especially for me having nothing to do with RedState. I don’t know, but I guess I just got a thing for expressing my opinion. I know, it’s annoying. People who disagree with me certainly hate to read it and heaven forbid I should say something that makes sense. But let’s move on, shall we. Let’s take a look at the republican philosophy. The root of the word republican is republic. The word republic has many different meanings, as that word is used to describe a variety of different government systems. For instance, the United States of America is a republic, but so is China. The meaning of the word has been obfuscated over time, as many words are wont to do. Well, I’m kind of partial to the type of republic the United States of America set up with its constitution. I would guess that a Republican in this country was one who believed in a constitutional republic where the rights of the individual are protected from the abuse of government power. If this is the case, than the republican philosophy and the libertarian philosophy can coexist quite nicely.

But perhaps this isn’t the case. Perhaps the decision to ban Ron Paul discussions from newcomers on this blog was made because a majority of people wanted such a ban initiated. A system where the majority rules over the minority is called a democracy. Someone who believes in that philosophy might call themselves a democrat. No, I doubt that’s what happened.

I’m fairly certain the decision was made by a few officers of the blog, or even the top dog, and that the reason was stated honestly, that they were annoyed. I can understand annoying. You see, the majority of people I talk to usually don’t like candidates from either the Republican or Democratic parties. They simply don’t like the corruption rampant in both parties. They either hold their noses on election day and vote for the lesser of two evils, or more likely they simply don’t show up to vote at all. I’ve tried to explain to people that if all those who didn’t want to vote for evil were to simply vote for a third party candidate then that candidate would win and the stranglehold of this duopoly would relax a bit. People chuckle at this and talk about wasting votes. How annoying.

They accuse Ron Paul supporters of being liberals instead of true Republicans. Liberal, now there’s a word that hasn’t been overused. I had to look up the definition of liberal. It seems maybe Ron Paul supporters are liberal, according to the dictionary. What I want to know is this, are the people running RedState suggesting that true Republicans can’t be broad minded? Are they suggesting Republicans are against free markets? Are they suggesting Republicans are limited by orthodox, authoritarian dogmas and that they are not free of bigotry? Are they suggesting Republicans are against civil liberties? I’m just using one dictionary’s definitions of the words liberal and liberalism to formulate these questions. Personally, I don’t see how believing philosophically in a constitutional republic excludes these things. It seems to me all these things can coexist together.

There seems to be an honest admission in the reasoning posted by RedState to ban Ron Paul discussion. They do admit, surprisingly, to being fascists. I’m not sure what they mean about someone discovering where they keep black helicopters, but I could care less what color helicopters they own. Looking up the word fascism, I found this definition: “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.” I find the philosophies being proffered by Republican candidates other than Ron Paul tend to run along some of these lines, particularly the bits about centralization, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of opposition through censorship and belligerent nationalism. In fact, what this blog is doing is a perfect example of censorship. Of course, it’s a privately owned blog so those who own it have every right to censor it as they see fit.

As I stated earlier, I can understand annoying. It must be annoying to have to have to deal with concepts such as liberty and personal responsibility. I can understand where it would be annoying to have to argue against such concepts. It is much more comforting to surround yourself with people who think like you do. God forbid one might be exposed to some new idea. God forbid one might have to deal with someone who doesn’t want the government to take care of every aspect of their lives. It’s better that one believe those who disagree with them are all crazy. It’s better that one try to belittle and minimize those who might challenge their belief system. It’s better that one kick those who question the status quo off one’s little blog so such ideas won’t infiltrate one’s little community.

And of course, these newcomers haven’t earned any respect. You can’t respect someone merely for being human. Humans can’t have valid opinions when they first sign up for a blog such as RedState, at least not about Ron Paul. People coming into such a blog can’t come into it with some sort of preconceived ideas that they’ve developed simply by living in the real world. Oh no, they have to be exposed to the blog’s indoctrination period of six months. They have to show that they can submit to the blog’s propaganda for that period of time so that they can show they have the ability to think like those already on the blog before they can talk about Ron Paul. But, again, it’s RedState’s blog and it’s obviously much more comfortable for those using it to think that everyone believes as they do. God knows one wouldn’t want to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion. They probably just want to engage in a quiet discussion of which big government, war mongering Republican candidate has the best chance of beating Hillary. Well, I guess that’s fine. As a matter of fact, they did point out that there are many blogs where people can go to discuss Ron Paul. I guess if Ron Paul supporters want to get a different point of view and still talk about Ron Paul, RedState is not the place to go.

So, Ron Paul supporters, you might want to stay away from RedState. Don’t tell them that Ron Paul respects the constitution and wants the government to honor it. Don’t tell them that Ron Paul supports solid money based on something other than credit and debt. Don’t point out that he wants to save money by ending the wars and bringing our troops home from around the world. Don’t tell them he supports smaller government. Don’t tell them that he wants to restore the freedoms and liberties that have been infringed upon by laws such as the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. They don’t want to hear it. They don’t care. They’re true Republicans, and such concepts don’t fit into their authoritarian ideals and their dreams of empire.

The "Read the Bills Act" and Common Sense

Recently, I’ve had the chance to read Thomas Paine’s treatise entitled “Common Sense.” In it, Thomas Paine basically talks about what was happening in his times between the British colonies on the continent of North America and the country of Great Britain which was charged with protecting the colonies. He spoke of events that are history now, but were news events of the day back then. He spoke of things that just seemed to make common sense to him. For instance, he argued that heredity was a poor way to choose a ruler, that just because someone was the son of a king didn’t mean that he’d make a good king. He argued against reconciliation with Great Britain, as the Boston massacre had already taken place and that once the fighting had started reconciliation would only open the door to further abuse. He argued that the king of England was a tyrant and that he was not interested in what was good for the American colonists, only what was good for him. There is a lot to be learned from Thomas Paine’s writings, and unfortunately far too few Americans read his work today or understand its meaning.

Much of Thomas Paine’s writings can be applied to today’s world. For instance, he speaks of a tyrannical king and a government not attending to the needs of the common man in the colonies. He spoke of trade being blocked and unfair taxes being levied. Of course there were people who felt differently back then, who felt a loyalty to the king of England and argued against breaking free of his influence. Thomas Paine just plain made better sense. Why would anyone want to keep around an abusive government? Thomas Paine’s writings helped win over the hearts and minds of many Americans and they went on to defeat a very powerful occupation force and win their independence. Today, the United States of America has become the pre-eminent power in the world because of its willingness to let its people and markets work free of government encumbrances, and sometimes I think in spite of itself.

Yet, there are things about modern America that just don’t seem to make sense to me. For instance, the founders of this nation fought to overthrow a tyrannical monarchy and establish a representative government, but the common man no longer seems to be represented. Instead, groups of men known as lobbyists inhabit the hallways and backrooms of our Capitol and peddle their influence to men charged with defending our Constitution. They ask our congressmen and senators to vote for this bill or against that bill. They do this not for the sake of the common man, and certainly not considering the sanctity of the constitution, they do this for their own selfish interests and agendas. They influence the lawmakers of this country to protect their interests. Huge corporations are able to spend their millions to get our lawmakers to pass laws that will squash any competition before it can even start. Even foreign governments can lobby our lawmakers to pass laws which will benefit them, perhaps even at the expense of others or ourselves, albeit they usually do so in a roundabout way such as enlisting the help of American citizens and corporations.

There is a way to put a stop to this, and we don’t need a violent revolution to do so. There is a way to help government become more accountable, but your help is needed. There is a group called Downsize DC which is trying to get a bill passed in congress called the “Read the Bills Act.” It just makes sense that lawmakers should be required to read any bill to be put to a vote before voting on it. After all, isn’t that what we’re paying them for? How can they represent you if they don’t even know what the bills they’re voting on say? Are we supposed to trust their staffers and the lobbyists they work with to be honest with them about the meanings of the bills they vote on? How many times are laws going to be passed with names that are exactly the opposite of the true nature of the bill before lawmakers realize what’s going on? To vote for or against a bill on the word of another without reading and understanding it is not how one should go about representing the people of one’s district, it is foolish and it is negligent. The lawmakers have been negligent of their duties and abusive to the people of this country for far too long, and they have done so by taking money in the form of political contributions from one group while pandering to the desires of another. The “Read the Bills Act” just makes sense.

In a nut shell, the “Read the Bills Act” will require every lawmaker, under the legal penalties of perjury, to read every word of every bill before voting on it. It will make sure that penalties are in place for those lawmakers who do not read the bill. It will require that the bill be posted on the Internet for a week before it’s voted on so the public can read it, get in touch with their representatives, and let them know what they think about it. Personally, I think that a month would be more appropriate as most people today have busy lives and some may not be able to keep up with these bills on a weekly basis, but a week would be a start. It would require that any amendments to the bill also be subject to the “Read the Bills Act” so that no new stipulations could be sneaked into the bill just before the vote. Such a law simply makes sense. Most everyone else in this country has to do their job properly or risk being fired, why shouldn’t it be the same for our lawmakers?

The benefits to the common people of this legislation would be many. Government growth would slow. Intrusive and unconstitutional laws likely would not be passed. The interests of this nation would take precedent above the interests of corporations. Most of all, our representatives would have to represent us, or they would be held accountable. More information can be found at www.downsizedc.org. Please go to their website and learn how you can help. They have done a wonderful job making it easy for the common person’s voice to be heard. Remember, a few pebbles falling can start an avalanche. You can be the pebble that starts the shift that leads to change.

Nostradamus, Anti-Christs and the Rush to the Apocalypse

This article originally appeared at uncoverthenews.com on Oct. 31st, 2007

think it’s human nature to want to know the future. People wonder and worry about everything from whether or not it will rain tomorrow to what life’s going to be like a hundred years from now. It’s not so hard to predict something that might happen a minute from now, or an hour, or tomorrow’s weather, it is much more difficult to predict what will happen next year, or next decade, or next century. Still, people have a tendency to want to know these things. There’s much uncertainty in the future and by believing that one psychic or another can foresee it may help allay some of the worry people naturally feel when uncertainty is involved.

Nostradamus was a man who many believe could see into the future. According to some experts on his writings, he made a number of predictions about our current era. It is said that he predicted the coming of three anti-Christs, the first being Napoleon, the second be Hitler, and the third being an as yet undetermined individual. According to many Nostradamus scholars the third anti-Christ, when he finally shows up, will bring about an extraordinary amount of death and destruction and maybe even start in motion Apocalyptic events and the end of the world. There has been much speculation as to who this third anti-Christ might be and I’ve seen more than a few Nostradamus scholars on television speculate that he may have meant Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. These speculations are one of those things that make me go hmmm.

As it happens, I watched a program a couple of nights back about a lost book supposedly written by Nostradamus. After two hours of looking at childish drawings that could have depicted just about anything and being told what to think about them, we were more or less told that Nostradamus predicted that time, or the world as we know it, would come to an end in the year 2012 when the sun aligns with the galactic center, just like the Mayans had. To me, this conclusion was a stretch, even with the bias evident in the reasoning used and the evidence presented. Now, I’m no expert on Nostradamus, but I am interested in his writings and I have studied them a bit. I find the position that Nostradamus was predicting modern events a little hard to believe. Keep in mind that I have a proclivity to believe in psychic abilities and the paranormal and while I find many of his quatrains interesting and possibly more than just coincidental, I also find them sufficiently vague enough to be interpreted in a variety of ways. It seems to me that it wouldn’t be a stretch that some might interpret Nostradamus’ work and use the interest he generates in a way to support an agenda or point of view they might have.

As an example, we can examine the concept of the anti-Christ. Nostradamus is said to have predicted the coming of three anti-Christs, as I stated earlier. But if Napoleon and Hitler are to be considered anti-Christs, shouldn’t other despots been considered anti-Christs as well? Certainly Joseph Stalin was at least as much a murderer as Adolf Hitler. Pol Pot gave Napoleon a run for the money when it came to killing. And all those mentioned may have been outdone by Mao Zedong, who some blame for the peacetime deaths of tens of millions, and he was from the east. Couldn’t he have been the third anti-Christ Nostradamus spoke of? Of course if he was, that would not suit those who are in power today and want to wage a war against terror. These people want to convince as many others as possible to support their efforts and will use whatever propaganda they can in order to do so.

All this talk about anti-Christs and the end of the world leads me to ask, why are we as a society so fascinated with the apocalypse? Why do we seem to be in such a hurry to witness it? What drives an individual to hope for apocalyptic events to occur? Are so many that anxious to meet their maker? Are so many honestly wishing to see and endure all the pain and suffering that would accompany such events? Have they even thought of it in those terms? Are there so many that are so egotistical that they would wish such events upon the population just so they would be proven right? It makes one wonder about mankind’s priorities. It seems to me that we as a race have already been through enough apocalypses to last hundreds or thousands of lifetimes. It seems to me that we have already fought the battle of Armageddon too many times to count and God has simply chosen not to show up, or perhaps he has shown up inside every soldier on every battlefield, as has Satan. I have heard it said that we each create Heaven or Hell right here on this plane of existence. I have heard it said that there is a little piece of divinity in each and every one of us. Perhaps it is up to the individual whether the good or evil divinity surfaces in any given situation, and this could be especially true when under great stress.

So, many people believe that the year 2012 will bring about apocalyptic events. They live in fear (or perhaps in anticipation) of these events. Why is it that more people don’t take a different point of view? Why is it that more of us can’t believe that by the year 2012 the world will be at peace, that the fighting will have ceased, that conflict between people will be resolved in a more civil manner, and that we will all treat each other fairly and with kindness? Perhaps Nostradamus’ third anti-Christ has already come and gone and we missed it. Perhaps it is now up to us to begin the era of peace that is to follow. Perhaps if we stopped believing the Earth can only support so many of us and we started helping each other we would find that we can all find harmony in this world. Perhaps if we all started believing wondrous times await us in the future and stopped believing the apocalypse is inevitable, perhaps then we would turn a corner. There’s really only one way to find out.

Why is Fox News Promoting War?

This article originally appeared at uncoverthenews.com on Oct. 21st, 2007

On Oct. 21st, 2007, Fox Network presented a Republican debate. During the debate, Ron Paul was booed when talking about the Iraq war, even though he garnered much applause when speaking about other constitutional issues. These are strange days indeed. These occasions were, in fact, the only time I’ve ever heard Ron Paul booed. Not that I’ve watched every single time he’s spoken in public, but it was rather odd hearing the chorus of boos while he spoke. It seems that even though a huge majority of Americans want to end this war as soon as possible, those people did not seem to show up for this debate. I guess the live audience at this Fox Network event represented the minority, and a rather rude minority at that. It makes one wonder where Fox Network got this audience from. I don’t believe the average citizen in Orlando is any more likely to be for the war than in any other part of the country. No one wants to see war, it is a nasty, inhuman endeavor that has a tendency to devastate lives on massive scales and effects even the innocent who try to stay out of its way. The havoc it wreaks is nothing less than terrifying and the scars and resentment it leaves can last generations. No one wants that, except maybe those who seek to gain or profit from it.

Of course, Fox Network could never stack the audience in order to get such a response. I can’t believe for a second they would have stooped so low as to have screened audience members to make sure they reacted rudely to Ron Paul’s message of peace. Not Fox Network! Not the “fair and balanced” news. Why, Fox News is one of the most honest, trusted news networks there is. They wouldn’t fix the news to reflect their own point of view. They couldn’t possibly skew or spin a story or event to reflect the thinking of their management. Not them. Never, ever. Why, then they’d be engaging in propaganda, and that wouldn’t be right. No, I’m certain that the audience was just a random sampling of people interested in the political process and wanting to hear from the Republican candidates on a variety of issues and the rude booing that occurred was just an anomaly.

The first thing Allen Colmes asked about was the text message poll. He asked Ron Paul what he thought was “going on” with the text messaging poll. What kind of question is that? People are calling in and voting for Ron Paul, that’s what’s going on. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out, though I could see where it might confuse Sean Hannity who seems to sincerely believe, as he stated earlier, that Ron Paul supporters are somehow able to “stack the deck” in Ron Paul’s favor during the text messaging polls. An interesting trick, to get three percent to look like ten times that amount. I honestly don’t think it ever occurs to him that maybe thirty four percent of the people watching actually felt Ron Paul won. He also seems to sincerely believe that war is a good thing and that the terrorist “boogie men” might get a nuclear bomb and use it on us. Doesn’t he understand that the Iraqis consider the deaths of innocent civilians in their country our fault, either directly or indirectly, due to our involvement over there? Doesn’t he realize that it is our involvement that gives the Iraqis reason to seek revenge and increases the chances of terrorism happening here? Most of all, doesn’t he realize that the best way to mitigate the possibility of terrorism happening here is to get out of Iraq, let the Iraqis work through their own problems, and start trading with them peacefully and fairly? Ron Paul understands these things, and so do his supporters. As long as we as a nation continue to act out of fear, we run the risk of creating a self fulfilling prophesy.

Sean Hannity goes on to ask Ron Paul if he considers himself a more of a Libertarian or a Republican. Ron Paul answers correctly when he states he is a Republican who believes in liberty. Ron Paul has been a Republican congressman from Texas for ten terms. He is a believer in smaller government and a fiscal conservative, and that’s the Republican stance I’m familiar with. The neo-cons would like it if Ron Paul were a Libertarian and they could exclude him from their debates. Then the American people wouldn’t hear his message. The big government Republicans of Sean Hannity’s ilk don’t like to hear these types of things because they realize that Ron Paul’s message is a powerful one for freedom loving Americans, and they know they can’t win against such a message. They know that if the American people wake up and begin to demand that government honor their liberties then their power and influence is lessened. They don’t want to see that happen and so they keep raising the spectre of a terrorist with a nuclear weapon. They believe the American people can be scared into voting into office another tin tyrant who will crack down on our freedoms even more and maintain and even tougher police state, all in the name of our protection.

Fox News is promoting war, in my opinion. Perhaps they do it to maintain power and influence. Perhaps they do it for money and ratings. Perhaps something far more nefarious is brewing under the surface. Whatever the reason, it seems to be failing. Fox News is losing viewers, as are the other news networks. Perhaps the American people are getting tired of being told what to think. Perhaps they have found a better venue where they can obtain more objective information and make up their own minds. Perhaps they have found a truly “fair and balanced” venue. Most people really don’t like war. I believe we will find that it won’t take much effort to end this one, if the right leader is in office.

It is Time For the Other Republican Presidential Candidates to Step Down and Support Ron Paul

This article originally appeared in americanchronicle.com on Oct. 22nd, 2007

I’ve never tried to hide the fact that I’m an Independent. Sure, I also claim to be a Libertarian, but that’s only because their ideology and mine coincide. I’ve never belonged to the Libertarian political party. I consider myself more of an Independent simply because I believe that as a voter one should make up his own mind as to what candidate is best for the job based on his ideals, his principles, any past voting record he might have, and any experience he might have, not based on his looks, personality, popularity or what political party he or she belongs to. I think it is my responsibility as a voter to look into a candidate for myself and see what his or her stances are on a variety of issues and not just let someone else do the thinking for me by creating a party label which defines what to think on these various issues. An Independent is a free thinker who is able to shift his point of view depending on circumstances. I don’t claim that I agree with any candidate on all the issues. In fact, it is my contention that the only way I could possibly agree with any one candidate on all the issues is if I was that one candidate. As an Independent I can find the candidate I agree with on most issues and vote for him or her. The party system in this country makes it far more difficult to find that individual.

Yet, the United States of America has adopted this party system. Two parties have come to dominate, to the extent that it is nearly impossible for a third party to even get on the ballot in all fifty states. In fact, I believe the last time a third party candidate managed to make the ballot in all fifty states was the last time Ross Perot ran. These parties have come to represent a sort of strange dichotomy in the political landscape of America. The Democrats wish to pass themselves off as the party of the people. They do so by suggesting to the public that they are in favor of preserving civil liberties while regulating business. The Republicans wish to pass themselves off as the “law and order” party, the security party and the party of the middle class. They attempt to accomplish this by deregulating private sector businesses while curtailing civil liberties. They claim to cut taxes but somehow I feel more taxed than ever. They present the American public with these two platforms and say, “Ok, now, choose one or the other.” I almost never choose one or the other, I almost always vote for another choice. So many people, however, have been brainwashed into thinking that voting for another choice is “wasting their vote” that they don’t even look into third party candidates and independents. It’s a shame. So many thoughtful candidates with innovative ideas have been lost to our political landscape because of this.

It seems to me that year after year the two parties, the Democrats and Republicans, become more and more alike. What seems to have ended up happening is that both parties have become corporate bought parties of big government. What seems to have happened is that, in their zeal to compromise, our businesses are now over regulated and our personal freedoms are more curtailed and more threatened than they’ve ever been. What the majority of the population wants, in my humble opinion, is our freedoms restored in both our business and personal lives, less government intrusion, smaller government, adherence to the constitution which is our heritage and, let us not forget, an end to the endless wars this government seems to love so much.

Along comes Ron Paul. He advocates all the values I pointed out above. Time and again he wins debates, as determined in online polls afterward. Time and again he wins straw polls. He wins despite getting unequal time. He wins despite an attempted media blackout. He wins despite the political pundits on television telling people his supporters are few and insignificant and that he has no chance of winning the nomination. Ron Paul supporters continue to voluntarily put up signs, go to rallies, and otherwise spread his message for him. And, when the call went out, Ron Paul supporters, the common people of this country, were able to scrape together over 5 million dollars for his campaign at an average clip of $40 per donation. That’s 125,000 donations. That’s quite a feat. How many other candidates can claim that kind of support? How many other candidates would be able to raise that kind of money without the help of large corporations? My guess is, not too many, if any at all.

So now the media has started to come around. It’s getting harder for them to ignore him. They’ve started to give Ron Paul more face time. They’ve started to talk to and about him seriously. Everyone is beginning to examine these concepts of freedom, smaller government, and adherence to the laws spelled out for us by our founding fathers in that quaint little document known as the Constitution. These are concepts that were adopted in this country only because our ancestors were willing to pay for the establishment of American independence with their own blood. They died on the battlefields of Boston and New York, of Trenton and Princeton, of Saratoga, Camden and Yorktown. They died so that their progeny would know freedom, so that their descendants would not know the tyranny of a monarchy or any form of authoritarian government. And yet that is what this country seems to be devolving into, for the vast majority of our lawmakers seem to wear authoritarian stripes. It took a man like Ron Paul to point this out and the American people like what they are hearing. It seems sad to me that these concepts became so alien to the people of this country in the first place, but now the people seem to be welcoming them back like the prodigal son.

Yet the Republicans still lag behind. They still seem to think Ron Paul is some Internet phenomenon created by cyber people who vaporize when confronted with the real world. They don’t seem to realize that there are flesh and blood human beings visiting these blogs and websites and otherwise interacting with one another via the Internet platform. Ron Paul’s success on this venue translates into real votes and real money. Real people are showing up on real streets and at real rallies to support him. The Republicans need to recognize these facts now and capitalize on them, lest the GOP become relegated to the dustbin of history and we truly become a one party nation, that party being the Democratic Party, as right now they appear to be the lesser of two evils, thanks in part to George W. Bush.

Whether the Republicans realize it or not, I don’t know, but they have the chance here to do something truly amazing. They have a chance to actually become a second party and give the people of this country a real choice. For so long now the American people have been voting for either Big Government Party Heads or Big Government Party Tails that joke upon joke has been made about it. The Republicans can help bring the sad laughter to an end, at the Democrats' expense. They can help end corporate rule in America. They can join the revolution, side with the common man, support the Constitution, and keep the promises they made decades ago, and all they have to do is back off and tout Ron Paul as their man. Or, they can keep trying to cram Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson, or any other Democrat light candidate down our throats and end up as insignificant as a number of third parties are today.

The time has come for the Republicans to face the fact that the only candidate running in their primary with a lick of difference from the Democratic candidates is Ron Paul. Let’s examine what is probably the most important issue in most people’s mind in this campaign, the Iraq war. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that is against the war and has been from the very beginning. He has stated that he would bring the troops home as soon as possible if he were president. All the other candidates hem and haw about victory, Iraqi security and timetables. They obfuscate these terms and speak in generalizations to hide their true agenda and motives. They would protract this war into infinity if possible and the American people know it. They are fear mongers advocating security above freedom, which translates into a police state, and the people realize this. More than that, they also realize that the Democrats are exactly the same. The presidential candidates which are the front runners for the Democrats can’t hide the fact that they voted for the Iraq war. They backed Bush every time he asked for funding. They have done nothing to try to stop the war, or to try to stop Bush. The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is the Democrats offer to return at least some of the money stolen from the people in the form of social programs. Money is a powerful motivating tool and if the choice is between big government candidate heads and no money and big government candidate tails with money, many people just might pick tails.

Ron Paul’s candidacy fixes that. He beats all the top three Democratic presidential candidates hands down. He voted against the Iraq war. They can’t say that. He voted against the Patriot Act. They can’t say that. And we should question whether or not they even read the Patriot Act, tome that it is, in the short time there was between its introduction to congress and when they voted on it. There could have been something completely bizarre in that law, like everyone giving up their first born to the state or some such thing, and they would have voted it into law without knowing and without even batting an eyelash. How can we trust these people? Ron Paul has consistently voted and continues to vote against any law that appears to violate the constitution. No Democrat running for president can say that. He is perhaps the only congressman who takes his oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic seriously. In an election between Ron Paul and any of the Democrats, I believe Ron Paul would win handily. His message is that refreshing, and perhaps as importantly, it is backed up by his voting record.

Americans are proud of their heritage. It is a heritage of freedom, not slavery to the state. It is a heritage of self reliance, not one of crawling to big brother for help. It is a heritage of personal responsibility, not one of asking to be taken care of. It is a heritage of liberty, not tyranny. Americans wish to reclaim that heritage. They have been longing for an honest candidate to openly proclaim a willingness to go back to the principles that made this country the success story of the ages and attempt to put an end to the Imperial conquests and the police state this country has been degrading into. Ron Paul is that candidate. He has proven he can attract the support of the masses and that he can raise the funds needed to defeat any other candidate in a fair election.

The other Republican candidates should back off, drop out of the race, and back Ron Paul if they want their party to maintain any semblance of relevancy. Their support base is quickly dropping off. Their funds are running out. Soon, there will be no one left for them to turn to but a few wealthy old codgers out of touch with the public and trying to cling to power. Soon their lobbyist and corporate friends will have given them all the money they can by law and they will have seen that money piddled away. They should bow out gracefully, back Ron Paul, and adopt his message and methods if they wish to remain in public service. Ron Paul’s biggest hurdle is his own party. They may try to minimize him and keep him down, but they need to see the futility in that now as his popularity continues to grow. They need to understand that they can’t fight ideas as powerful as freedom and liberty. They need to understand that Americans love their Constitution and want it honored. They need to understand that we are a peace loving nation and we wish only to practice honest trade with other countries. If the Republicans want to see their party keep the presidency, then Ron Paul is their man. He can and will beat any Democrat running with his message of peace, liberty and smaller government. He speaks truth, and truth not only resonates in the hearts and spirits of the masses, but as a weapon against any other presidential candidate the truth is sharper and can cut deeper than any sword ever forged by man.