Sunday, September 28, 2008
A couple of weeks ago I wrote an article about Ron Paul´s ability to raise money and Bob Barr´s failure to do so. In the course of that article I expressed my impressions of some of the other third party candidates in a not too favorable light. This was also an expression of my frustration and anger at the system which removed the candidate I most supported, the candidate I feel would provide the best leadership for this nation. In my mind Ron Paul is still the most principled, viable candidate put forth by any political party in this election season, but I begin to question the wisdom of my plan to write him in on a ballot where it almost certainly would go unnoticed. The thought of writing "This ballot intentionally left blank" as a protest and a show that I reject the government´s rule over me and no longer consent to be part of the system seemed an even better alternative, but the ballot is anonymous and so I must wonder if it would really accomplish anything at all except maybe give some bureaucrat a good laugh. This left me to re-examine the choices I had left.
I explained my impressions of other third party candidates in an earlier article and promised I´d dedicate an article to Chuck Baldwin. This is mainly because of the pro Chuck Baldwin emails I received after I wrote the first article. Many of his supporters were adamant that he is a strict constitutionalist, but I had my reservations. I was under the impression that he advocated government intrusions into our bedrooms. I was under the impression that he was in favor of federal laws that would try to moderate personal behavior. Perhaps this was due to his being a pastor of a Baptist church. Perhaps it was due to the Constitution Party´s platform. In any case, I was shown that my impressions were mistaken.
There were a couple particular Chuck Baldwin supporters who wrote me very articulate and persuasive emails. They were very polite in asking me to explain in greater detail my misgivings and then in responding to explain their positions and point out my misconceptions. I told one respondent that I felt he was a good writer and that he should publish his point of view in an online publication or blog. Mr. Baldwin has been largely ignored by the mainstream media and his campaign just hasn´t attracted the type of attention Ron Paul´s campaign managed. I believe this is because Ron Paul is a part of the establishment, like it or not, although the establishment does everything it can to keep his voice from being heard. Mr. Baldwin, like all third party candidates, faces an unfair system geared toward keeping the powerful establishment in power and a biased media geared toward doing its best to silence any other significant points of view. This, in my humble opinion, is the sad truth of our modern political process.
Politics is a dirty business. I don´t know if this has always been true, but it´s certainly been true for much of mankind´s written history. It attracts people of questionable character. It attracts those who wish to wield power over others. This is just the nature of the beast. That is one reason I find it difficult to trust anyone involved in politics. It is easy to smear a candidate. It is easy to accuse him of being crazy, a theocrat, a neocon, a bigot, an extremist of some sort or any number of undesirable things and many people will hear such accusations and believe them without question. I am not beyond such failings, for I am as human as anyone else. Ron Paul had to overcome such obstacles in his run and did an excellent job of it when he was given the opportunity. It is difficult to overcome such labels if one is never given the opportunity to explain one´s positions to a large audience. Third party candidates will not get the chance to participate in debates with Obama and McCain, will not get news coverage every time they open their mouths to speak like the two establishment candidates and will not get the exposure the establishment puppets have the privilege of receiving. This is not only unfair and unfortunate, but it also leaves voters believing they have to choose between two undesirable choices, to put it nicely.
I had a correspondence with a woman named Teri Owens. She is the State Secretary for the Constitution Party of Ohio. She was quite polite and I felt honored that she respected my opinion enough to make the effort to change it. I told her specifically that I had thought Mr. Baldwin supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman and that he wanted to ban stem cell research in the United States. I pointed to Mr. Baldwin´s own campaign website as evidence of this. She assured me that he wasn´t for such an amendment and pointed me to a quote of his where he spoke against the constitutional amendment. She also pointed out that he was simply against funding stem cell research with federal dollars (something I agree with) not against the private sector pursuing such research and using their own money to do so.
I answered Ms. Owens´ email with a request for links to videos and articles to help clarify Mr. Baldwin´s positions. I also asked her what his position was on the war on drugs as I had heard he was a big drug warrior. More specifically, I asked her about his position on medical marijuana. Ms. Owens happily provided these. Here are some excerpts from her email:
"Here is what Chuck has to say about the "drug war":
"I believe that as president, I would have the responsibility to keep drugs from crossing the borders, and I would do ever[y]thing in my power to keep drugs out of America. Once they come into the country, drug enforcement falls under the rubric of law enforcement, and the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government for domestic law enforcement. That is the responsibility of the state and local communities. So I believe that the drug war has been used by the federal government many times excessively, to the point where individual rights have been abridged and abrogated. I think the propensity for overreach is too great."
(Author´s note: This means he would do away with the DEA, which is an improvement to what the two "major" party candidates would do, as they would do nothing)
With Regard to Medical Marijuana
This also falls within the jurisdiction of the states and you can see from his response that he recognizes the limitations of the Federal government. Here is a clip:
"I think that's a states' issue. I don't think the federal government should have anything to do with that...I think those are states issues and I respect that."
"The federal government has no Constitutional provision to regulate or restrict the freedom of the people to have access to medical care, supplies or treatments. We advocate, therefore, the elimination of the federal Food and Drug Administration, as it has been the federal agency primarily responsible for prohibiting beneficial products, treatments, and technologies here in the United States that are freely available in much of the rest of the civilized world."
With Regard to Marriage:
In the same interview with The New American Magazine referenced above, Chuck Baldwin states:
"I support DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act."
The Defense of Marriage Act used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a "same sex" marriage license issued in another state. The other side of that coin is that if a state chooses to recognize same sex marriage, Baldwin admits there is nothing that he, as President or the Federal government in general is "Constitutionally" permitted to do about it.
"If a federal Marriage Amendment was enacted all that would do would [be to] authorize the Supreme Court to meddle with it, and by the time the Supreme Court would be done with it, it could be something far more monstrous than what the pro-life and pro-family people would want. I don't think that's a good idea. I don't think that's a necessary approach."
With Regard to Embryonic Stem Cell Research
"Only those duties, functions, and programs specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution should be funded. We call upon Congress and the President to stop all federal expenditures which are not specifically authorized by the U. S. Constitution, and to restore to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has usurped." " (end quote)
One of the wonderful things about Ron Paul´s presidential campaign was his ability to spread the message of liberty to so many. He was already a popular congressman in Texas and already had a reputation on capital hill being known as "Dr. No." He had a twenty year voting record under his belt and so his supporters could be certain he meant what he said. He was able to get into the debates and grappled with the establishment candidates extremely well. The common folk of this country came to know and support him because he was genuine, not because he made promises to them or tried to make them feel good. He didn´t pretend to be their savior. He simply remained honest and delivered the same message he had delivered for decades. And the Republicans rebuked him for that. Mr. Chuck Baldwin does not have that luxury. He has no voting record for us to look at. I looked at the Constitution Party´s platform and made some assumptions about him, but that was not fair. He doesn´t necessarily agree with the Constitution Party´s platform on all issues. Certainly Ron Paul didn´t agree on the Republican Party´s platform on all issues and I didn´t judge him because he is a Republican. I now chose to show the same courtesy to Mr. Baldwin. In some spots his stances might not be clear, and I believe that some of his words are carefully chosen to obfuscate in order to attract the maximum amount of voters, but that is the nature of politics. If one is willing to forgive these minor transgressions than certainly one would consider voting for Mr. Baldwin. Ron Paul has now endorsed him, and that certainly has a lot of pull in my book. One thing is definite, Chuck Baldwin is a superior choice to either Barack Obama or John McCain, or for that matter any of the socialist third party candidates we are presented with.
I´m still uncertain as to exactly what I will do when it comes to voting this November. As I´ve been shown these last couple of weeks, there´s always room to reconsider if one is willing. This world is in constant flux and one never knows what information may be revealed in the next few weeks. For right now, Chuck Baldwin is high on my list of possibilities.
Recently, I wrote an article explaining my views on why Ron Paul was able to gain so much support from the common man and raise the kind of money he did while Bob Barr was not. I half expected to get some emails from Bob Barr supporters telling me I was wrong, but that never happened. Instead, I got a few messages from Chuck Baldwin supporters who took issue with the one sentence I wrote about him. In the interest of fairness and to further clarify my point of view for some of my readers who may be seeking the best alternative for this most confusing election cycle, I thought I´d offer up a bit more analysis of the third party candidates.
First, let me make it clear that my basic views on voting haven´t changed. I still believe that most third parties are significantly better (at least in some respects) than either the Democrats or the Republicans. It´s sad to think that a hundred million or more votes are going to be wasted on men like Barack Obama and John McCain who obviously couldn´t care less about the foundations this country was built upon. It´s insanity to keep electing these same party politicians over and over again and expect to get different results. I say the big government statists have had their opportunities and they´ve led this nation down the path to becoming a nightmarish mix of police, nanny, and surveillance states that even George Orwell would have had problems imagining. It is well past time the stranglehold this duopoly has on the nation was broken and someone else got the opportunity to lead. The change that this nation needs will not come from the establishment candidates who simply pay lip service to the concept of change. Perhaps the change needs to come from the people. We must be the change we seek. To help accomplish this, we need to change the types of people we vote into office. Unfortunately, I don´t foresee the vast majority of Americans suddenly becoming enlightened.
There are, indeed, a couple of very important issues that all the third party candidates agree on, and their points of view are in opposition to the establishment candidates´. War is a big issue where the third parties disagree with the Republicans and the Democrats. I know that Democrats will say that their man wants to end the war in Iraq, but we are involved in more countries than Iraq and the Democrats will carry on with occupying those and they certainly don´t want out of Iraq soon enough. While third party candidates are calling for immediate withdrawal of troops, Mr. McCain wants war with no end and I can´t be certain what Mr. Obama wants. If one wishes to vote on this issue alone, then any of the third party candidates would be a better choice than the two the establishment hopes you´ll vote for.
The other issue I think the third party candidates agree on is the issue of cleaning up the corruption in the federal government. This corruption runs deep and it stems, in my opinion, from the stranglehold on power the two establishment parties have enjoyed for far too long. I have believed this to be true for most of my life and I have voted accordingly. This year, for the first time since Ross Perot ran, I believe I saw a breath of life in the struggle to take the power of the establishment back from the elite and return it to the people. It would give this journalist great hope to see just ten percent or so of the electorate voting third party, if for no other reason than to send a message to the establishment that we grow weary of their failed policies and are looking for a genuine shift in direction. If twenty percent of the people were to do so it would be fantastic, the politicians would take notice, and I would be exuberant. The more people that can be convinced to vote third party, any third party, the better in my opinion, and that works for anyone who wants to send a message by writing in any candidate who advocates freedom or even writing in a "none of the above" vote.
That said, I believe that certain third party candidates are better choices than others. Bob Barr still hasn´t earned my trust, despite the fact that he´s joined the Libertarian Party and says he will abide by their principles. Merely stating something doesn´t make it so. Yes, I do believe he is a smaller government type of guy, but he still seems like the kind of person who is simply interested in gaining power, and the more the better. How am I to believe someone who has made a career out of equivocating and pandering? Perhaps he has changed and he is sincere, but I just don´t feel comfortable supporting him. He still strikes me as a big government politician, albeit one who has decided to call himself a Libertarian. Perhaps in a few years if he has the chance to prove himself I would support him, but not right now. In spite of all that, he is a much better pick than either the Republican or the Democrat candidates and I don´t begrudge his supporters when they decide to vote for him. At least they are sending a message to the establishment that they don´t feel represented by either of those parties.
Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are also candidates that have their faults, in my opinion, but either one of them would be a better choice than Obama or McCain. Both those third party candidates have very good intentions, I´ve no doubt of their sincerity in their desire to help people and I am sympathetic to that, but using the power of the state to achieve such ends is nothing more than forced wealth redistribution. If they were to start a private charity I would certainly be willing to donate what I could afford, but forcing people to donate is morally objectionable. Both these candidates feel that government is the answer to too many of our problems, most of which are government created, where I feel that the private sector could do a better, more efficient job. They do, however, at least seem to have their hearts in the right place and I must commend them for that. They are also seemingly more honest and forthright than the average politician. At least they don´t try to hide their socialist tendencies and will not waffle or flip flop on issues. This, again, puts them one step above most politicians. Again, I would not fault anyone who decided to support either McKinney or Nader. Certainly there are many former Democrats who are fed up with their party cozying up to the Republicans who would prefer to see either one of these people in office than the Democrats´ candidate. I say, go ahead and vote that way, if that is your wish, and don´t waste your vote on Obama. It´s time to send the establishment a message.
This brings me to Chuck Baldwin. I have a lot to say about him, enough that I think he deserves an article dedicated to him. When I wrote a couple of weeks back – in an article which was supposed to be about Bob Barr´s failure to raise money – a simple sentence: "Chuck Baldwin is also a man of good intentions who claims to be a strict constitutionalist, and yet he wants to maintain a government presence in certain areas of one´s personal life where government presence does not belong." I was sent a few emails from a couple of Mr. Baldwin´s supporters questioning the meaning of that statement. I wrote that sentence because that was the genuine impression that I had of his campaign from looking at his website, looking at the Constitution Party´s platform, and listening to the opinions of some of those whose opinions I respect. I reported my objections to Mr. Baldwin´s stances on some of the issues and I was shown that my impressions were most likely wrong. Looking more deeply into the man´s political beliefs, reading his words in interviews and listening and watching some of his Youtube videos has caused me to reconsider his candidacy. Even before I did this I felt that if I was going to vote for someone other than a write in, it would most likely be him. Now I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is the best third party candidate out there for someone concerned about smaller government and personal liberty.
I will go into more detail explaining why I felt as I did and why I´ve changed my mind in another article. For now, I will conclude by saying Chuck Baldwin is not the perfect candidate for president, but neither was Ron Paul. There are some things I disagree with both these candidates on, but these are relatively minor issues when compared to the bigger issues of ending all foreign wars, bringing all our troops home, guarding our own borders, repealing unconstitutional laws, restoring lost civil liberties, returning to a constitutional monetary system and shearing down the federal government to a constitutional size. In these and other areas, Chuck Baldwin´s stances mirror Ron Paul´s policies. He is on the ballot in 37 states and available as a write-in in 10 more. They are still trying to get on the ballot in Pennsylvania. Citizens of Oklahoma and North Carolina will not be able to legally vote for him if he is their choice, to the shame of those two states. I certainly can understand why anyone would support this man and he seems an excellent choice to spend your vote on.
Voting is a very personal thing. What is right for me may not be right for you. It is something that we should all use our best judgment when doing. But it seems to me to be a waste to vote for a Republican or a Democrat and then expect anything to change for the better. There is an old adage that says something to the effect of if you keep trying the same failed solution to the same problem, you´ll get the same results. In fact, doing that is one definition of crazy. The time has come to shake up the establishment. A vote for a third, forth, fifth or sixth party candidate is not a wasted vote. I believe the majority of Americans in their hearts know this to be true, they just don´t seem to be able to let their brains act upon it. Hopefully, this can change.
I grew up in the sixties. Yeah, I was just a little kid, but I remember quite a bit of what was going on. I guess I have a pretty good memory. I watched a war in Vietnam on television. I watched protesters take to the streets. I saw a lot of violence on the evening news. Back then, the reporters got their feet dirty. They got down into the trenches and filmed for us, at great personal risk, footage of police bashing and breaking peaceful protesters, and then footage of those once peaceful protestors finally fighting back. It took much testicular fortitude, to borrow a phrase, to take on such a job. At least that´s how it seems to me as I look back on things.
I also remember Watergate. I remember that two reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, were heralded as heroes for breaking the Watergate story. That was back when the media had teeth. I don´t believe it was completely a free media back then, but it certainly wasn´t as controlled as it is today. Those who have become drunk with power have seemingly managed to neuter the mainstream media. There are those in power who know how to manipulate the information received by the masses and there are those of great influence who seek to control what information the masses receive and what information the masses are kept unaware of. In this way the establishment makes certain it stays the establishment. In this way the media becomes its lapdog, neutered, whimpering, dependent upon its master for survival, and willing to bark incessantly if it senses any intrusion upon the master´s private property. The establishment will pat the dog on the head when it does a good job and spank it when it´s naughty, sending it to a corner with its tail between its legs.
The mainstream media has lost its significance when it comes to news reporting. It is no longer the watchdog for the people. It is no longer able to report truthfully on government corruption, for it has fallen into bed with those in power and now sleeps peacefully at their feet while the masters plan their treasons against the American people and the Constitution. They are afraid to lose their comfy chairs in the White House press room and so they refuse to ask tough questions and more importantly refuse to investigate claims as they take the word of those in power as gospel. They are, in my humble opinion, just as responsible for the debacle in Iraq as the current administration, for they had ample opportunity to expose the lies and they chose to simply report the Bush administration´s claims as if they were fact. Yet that doesn´t seem to matter to a great many Americans as they seem to have forgotten that betrayal (among others) and continue to trust these propagandists as if we still had an uncompromised press.
With such news services, the masses don´t see any real news as it happens. Take, for instance, the recent political conventions just produced by the establishment politicos. They did not want the American people to see any of the protests taking place, and so the only place one could go to find coverage of these very significant events was Youtube. While scores of protesters marched during the DNC they were largely ignored by the mainstream media and a scripted convention brought to you by the established national powers was televised to a mostly unaware public in an attempt to sustain the illusion of party unity they want the masses to believe in. While at the RNC scores of our fellow citizens tried to exercise their God given rights to free speech, dozens inside the convention tried to foment a little bit of drama of their own and thousands gathered a few blocks away to take part in Ron Paul´s Rally for the Republic, hardly a peep was heard from the mainstream media as they decided instead to broadcast the meaningless drivel spewing from the mouths of inconsequential statists as they praised another statist named John McCain and his politically correct beauty queen pick for a running mate. In both cases the real news was happening outside, but the lazy, bought and paid for, neutered mainstream media proved once again to be the obedient pets of the state as they reported on only the trivial just like the establishment wanted.
Meanwhile, the state´s other favorite pets, the police, were and are busy with their own duties to the establishment. Unlike the media, these darlings are able to keep their man bits so that they can maintain their aggressiveness. Many of these unquestioning servants of the powers that be want nothing more than to be able to bash in the heads of some dissidents. Most likely it is only the fear of their violent crimes being exposed by some random blogger who just happens to film them and post it on Youtube that is keeping them from completely losing it and going gonzo on peaceful protesters. Their fellow state pets in the mainstream media certainly aren´t keeping them in check. There´s even the possibility that the castrati press are frightened of these mad dogs as they´ve seen their work first hand and don´t wish to get caught up in the mayhem should the police be unleashed upon unarmed activists. Recently, I´ve seen a couple of reports of police brutalizing even some in the press as they chillingly attempted to silence US citizens who tried to exercise their right to peaceably assemble and speak their minds at the RNC. This silencing of the commoners was mostly successful due to the lack of reporting by the mainstream media. The masses remain uninformed and go about their business as if all were normal, mostly unaware that they now live in a police state and that their freedoms they once cherished are no longer respected by that state.
It is the job of these police to be the sheepdogs of the establishment. Using fear and cruelty they manage to keep the sheeple from wandering off on their own. Using extortion and the threats of the justice system they fleece the sheeple and keep them in line. They are keeping the herd together and driving them toward, well, only the shepherd knows where we´re being driven and for what purpose. These police are no longer peace officers who are called upon only to keep the peace between individuals, but law enforcement officers called upon to enforce the dictates of a powerful elite regardless of whether their "laws" are good or bad, or whether they are constitutional or not. Today´s police are as adept at keeping the herd together as the best trained sheepdogs, and it seems to me they are patted on their heads and rewarded even when they get a bit too aggressive with the sheep and hurt a few of the herd. The established powers love their sheepdogs and want to be certain the most aggressive rise to the top.
One of the favorite laments of some of these state pets as they arrest someone or write them a citation for some "crime" that even they don´t think should be a crime is that we shouldn´t blame them. They are, after all, not responsible for writing the law, only enforcing it. They are just "doing their jobs." We shouldn´t take it personally as we are arrested, handcuffed and thrown in jail. We shouldn´t blame those who wrote the citation when we have to take a day off work, waste our time and go and stand before someone calling himself judge, explain our actions which harmed no one and beg him to let us keep our money/license/dignity/freedom. We shouldn´t blame our tormenters for tormenting us if that´s their job. They´re just doing their job. No thought process going on there. Just doing their job. The last lament of the unprincipled, obedient pet who loves its master and all he provides. Despite knowing what´s right, despite the faults of the system set up by the state, these pets chose to do no thinking as they go about their busniness.
These favorite pets of the establishment, the mainstream media and the police, almost seem to be working in concert to hold the common man in check. As our voices grow louder in a collective cry for justice, a return to the principles of our founding fathers, and a show of respect for our rights as sovereign individuals, the police grow more maniacal and the press becomes more silent. There is change brewing in this country, and it's not coming from some presidential candidate. The man on the street is walking on eggshells, and the uncertainty permeating the atmosphere does not help matters. There may come a time when these pets of the establishment have to make some hard decisions, and they may just decide to bite the hands that have fed them. After all, these are fellow human beings I´m talking about, and when push comes to shove, most human beings will know the difference between right and wrong.
Some time ago, in the spring of 2008, I was contacted by someone involved with Ron Paul´s candidacy and asked to write a speech to be given at the RNC. It was to be a speech designed to entice the undecided delegates into casting their votes for Ron Paul to run for the office of President of the United States as the Republican candidate. Apparently this person had read some of my pro Ron Paul articles and felt I was perhaps talented enough to write a persuasive speech. I wrote a couple iterations of this speech, but this is the final version I came up with. I felt some of my readers would appreciate this story as we reflect on what might have been. At the same time, the basic principles of this speech remain forever true, and as time progresses and the DNC, RNC and the Rally for the Republic fade into memory, we can only hope that more people discover the message of freedom and that eventually citizens raise their voices and demand restoration of our freedoms in such numbers that they can no longer be ignored.
"Friends, fellow Republicans, good citizens of this nation, I stand before you tonight humbled by your enthusiasm, but worried about our direction. An unpopular war rages on with no end in sight. Government has become far too large, intrusive and inefficient. The monetary policy has become too cumbersome. The burden of debt, with its massive interest and hidden inflation, is too heavy for the citizens of this nation to carry. The citizenry is breaking under its weight. The economy seems to be held together by toothpicks and bubblegum. These are problems that are going to take lots of work from many people to fix, and yet to listen to those who would lead this country one would think these problems didn´t exist. One would think that there was plenty of money, plenty of treasure, and not enough government to spend it. Those who ask to lead this nation seem to have no respect for the citizenry, believing the people can´t understand debt and would rather dig themselves deeper into it. They offer more illegal wars of aggression we need not involve ourselves in, more promises of entitlements without clear explanations as to how to pay for them, and no clear indication that laws violating human rights will ever be repealed. There is only one man, Ron Paul, who has addressed these issues with clear thinking during his campaign. He is the only candidate offering real change.
The American people can sense there´s something amiss here. They know there´s something wrong with the country and they´re willing to grasp at straws to try to fix it. They see a cult of personality in the Democrat´s candidate and they pin their hopes on him. They grow weary of war, inflation and uncertainty. They would place their faith in one who promises change but lacks the understanding and the will to affect it. In order to win we must offer the people genuine change. We must deliver to the people a candidate that has stood firm in his convictions for decades, one whose credentials are impeccable, one whose morality is unimpeachable, one that has proven himself to be a man of peace, a champion of the constitution and an advocate for freedom. We must deliver a candidate who will be able to deliver change. One who delivers a message of hope, not fear, one who will carry this country with pride, not shame, one who has faith in the people, not disdain for them, one who believes the people should rely on themselves, not on government. This party, this country, this world needs a man of principle standing as president of these United States of America right now. We need a man of honesty and integrity sitting at the helm as the head of state. Look deep into your hearts and you will know this to be true. There is only one man here tonight that fits that description. This country needs Ron Paul as president.
I could here use some quotes from our founders or great thinkers, quotes about the virtues of freedom and liberty, about the innate justice, opportunity and prosperity found in practicing such philosophies. I could quote these great figures from history that we all know and admire. But they lived in different times. They fought, died and lived for freedom. They were shining examples that showed us the way. This is our time. The time to reclaim our freedom is now.
Allow me to examine freedom from a modern point of view. Freedom is a concept we often speak about, but rarely define. It is the concept our nation was founded upon and yet today it means so many different things to so many different people. We hear the word used so often in so many divergent political points of view that we often times don´t realize when it´s being misused. Freedom is not something that is granted to us by government, freedom is an inalienable condition inherent in us by the mere fact that we are human. The government either respects that condition, or it does not. The founders of this great nation had great respect for this part of the human condition and therefore created a document called the Constitution guaranteeing the citizens of the original colonies that these freedoms would not be infringed upon should they decide to join the republic that would later be known as the United States of America. They limited the power of the three branches of government so that there would be three distinct and equal checks and balances set up in the hopes that a tyrannical state would not evolve and one branch would not usurp the others for control. We were warned that we must remain vigilant to keep our leaders from abusing our liberties. We have not been so vigilant lately. Sadly, our current government, our current administration, no longer respects the freedoms granted to us by nature. Even more sadly, those who ask us permission to lead would do nothing to restore the proper respect that government should show. This angers the people of a free nation, as well it should. They know that they have lost something important, something dear to them, and they seek to restore it, but if they are not given the choice they need, than how are they to choose? The lesser of two evils will simply no longer suffice. Ron Paul has a demonstrated history of supporting people´s freedoms. Present this to the American people and he will win in a landslide as they come to the understanding that he is the change they seek.
Unlike the other candidates, Ron Paul does not need to sell himself to the masses. He need not go out touting the voters to get support. On the contrary, his supporters found him. He needs no fancy makeover artists or image specialists preening him. The message of freedom and liberty needs no marketing. There is no need to con the voters into believing it. Its truth is self evident. And as these campaigns have progressed, it has become obvious that Ron Paul is the only candidate to support this message, and he has done so with strength and determination and the backing of the common man. Present him as the Republican candidate, let him debate the socialist policies of the Democratic candidate, and we will see an understanding light the minds of the American people as has not been done since the days of Andrew Jackson.
The American people must be given their due. They know taxes are evil. They understand that their money is being stolen. They realize the economy is in shambles. They understand more than many give them credit for. As a political party, we need to respect the people of this great country. We need to understand their hatred of war and their desire for peace, and we need to respect that. We need to understand that they will reject a policy of war, of any taxes, whether called a fair tax or an income tax, and entitlements which promise a false hope that can never be delivered. Ron Paul will show the people their proper respect, and they will respond by showing respect for him. He will allow them to take responsibility for their own lives and shrink the government to assure a smooth transition back to a country worthy of the dreams of not only our founding fathers, but of all current Americans and their progeny for generations to come.
Honesty, integrity and principle, these are words that are laughed at when used to describe a politician. However, this is not true when these words are used to describe Ron Paul. Dr. Paul´s reputation on capital hill is exemplary. His fellow congressmen and the lobbyists that court them know of Ron Paul´s honesty and strict adherence to the Constitution, and they shun him for it. It is a lonely job to stand up for the citizens of this fine nation if you are their representative and attempt to actually represent their interests and honor the oath of office that every elected federal official must take. That is the type of leader this nation needs, that is the type of leader this nation thirsts for, and it is this kind of leadership, honest leadership, principled leadership, which can root out the corruption and return this government of the people, by the people and for the people back to the people. Ron Paul´s candidacy has been termed by some as a revolution, with the word love highlighted. This second American Revolution that has chosen him as its symbol is not a revolution of violence and hatred, but a peaceful revolution of love instead of force. It´s an understanding that freedom holds within it the power to transform this entire planet into a world where human interactions work on a voluntary basis and no one is more equal than their neighbor. It is the realization that the Constitution was written to protect the common man from an unencumbered, unreasonable power that is known as The State. It is the knowledge that this idea is not something that can be thwarted by simply ignoring the words as they are written, but that the concept itself lives on regardless of whether or not The State suggests otherwise. It is these simple concepts that we must move forward, these precepts on which our country, our culture, our society was based on. To lose these concepts means to lose what it is to be American. The people of this nation know this intrinsically, and it is for this reason they will vote for Ron Paul. It is for this reason Ron Paul will win if he is presented before the American people as the Republican candidate, for freedom is a powerful message, and truth is the most powerful ally."
I still plan on writing in my vote for Ron Paul, for I refuse to vote for either of these two major party candidates who I find despicable. Both McCain and Obama will do nothing to shrink government. It will continue to grow like a cancer upon mankind until it metastasizes and kills its host. I refuse to be a part of a system that continues to infringe upon the rights of my fellow human beings. I refuse to voluntarily take part in a system that continues to steal from me and my neighbors. It seems America has been given a choice between communism or fascism, and I will not vote for either one. I desire only my freedom, and I pray that enough people come to realize they are no longer truly free and begin to do something about it before it´s too late.
Some time ago, in the spring of 2008, I was contacted by someone involved with Ron Paul’s candidacy and asked to write a speech to be given at the RNC. It was to be a speech designed to entice the undecided delegates into casting their votes for Ron Paul to run for the office of President of the
“Ladies and gentlemen, friends and neighbors, fellow citizens of this great nation, fellow Republicans, I come before you tonight not as one seeking power, not as a man seeking your permission to rule over you, but as a compatriot genuinely worried about the direction this country has taken, and as a man deeply concerned about the fate of this political party. I do not come before you as one ready to beg to be allowed to lead, but rather as a man willing to take the reins of leadership and yet empower the common man, the rank and file of this Grand Old Party, the passengers on this ship of state, to determine the direction we shall take.
The politics of old are dying. We are observing an empire in its death throes. And yet we don’t have to watch it happen. Our nation can be the greatest on earth once again. Our people are industrious. They are willing to work hard to prevent collapse. They are willing to make the necessary changes and sacrifices necessary to rebuild our standing in the world. But this is, as it has always been, a nation of free people. They must be allowed to use their natural ingenuity. They must be allowed to use their inherent capability to innovate. It is up to the leadership of this country to see to it the people can operate in markets unencumbered by government regulation. It is up to the leadership of this country to provide the people with the tools they need to rebuild. It is up to the leadership of this country to stand up to the powers that have dragged us down into the financial depths of despair and demand that constitutional money be reinstated as the money of this nation. It is time for our people to be trading money that represents the honest labor of their fellow man rather than his debt and servitude. And it is time to stop running an empire we can no longer afford, to bring our troops home, and to put to work the peace dividends such a move would create.
None of my opponents will even publicly recognize these problems. They wish to blind the electorate to these very real hazards. They wish to lead this nation into more war. They wish to lead this nation into more debt. They wish to lead this nation into more servitude. Of that there is no doubt, and you only have to listen to their empty rhetoric to realize that their answers only lead us further down a ruinous path that has already greatly cost us in lost lives, treasures, and the rights we so greatly cherish and our forefathers sacrificed so much to gain.
I ask to be the Republican candidate not to rule, but to serve. I wish to pursue not a policy of war, but one of peace, not a policy of occupation, but one of friendship, not a policy of empire, but one of goodwill and fair trade.
Our opponents would continue waging wars of empire. To do so, they must maintain a policy of monetary monopoly rather than competition. They would steal the future from our children and grandchildren, putting off the inevitable for as long as they can. They would push repayment off on their distant progeny if possible, knowing they will be long buried before payment comes due. They would sentence the unborn to a life of servitude rather than dealing with these problems themselves. Yet there is still hope if we don’t sell ourselves out. There is still a chance we can slip out of this financial yoke and regain our wealth. Our founders foresaw this eventuality and gave us the answer in the constitution. We have to but listen to them.”
That was as much of this speech as I ever completed before I realized I was writing for the wrong person and switched gears. I’m certain I was going to go on and talk about the government respecting the rights of the individual as guaranteed in our Constitution. These are, in fact, the principles which will help us to regain the respect of other nations rather than their fear and disdain. These are the principles which will lift humanity from the servitude of others and help create a world of respect and honor of each sovereign individual.
I still plan on writing in my vote for Ron Paul, for I refuse to vote for either of these two major party candidates who I find despicable. Both McCain and Obama will do nothing to shrink government. It will continue to grow like a cancer upon mankind until it metastasizes and kills its host. I refuse to be a part of a system that continues to infringe upon the rights of my fellow human beings. I refuse to voluntarily take part in a system that continues to steal from me and my neighbors. It seems