Here we are just days away from another GOP primary in Florida and just ten days from the all important Super Tuesday, where half of all the delegates will be chosen for the convention later this year in St Paul. (And I can't forget that other states like Maine and Hawaii are set to pick thier delegates too in the next few days.) We are down to five candidates, four of which have gotten a lot of media attention over the past year as the potential republican nominee. Ironically, the one that has for the most part been ignored is the one most closely aligned with the constitution and the traditional views of the republican party of the 20th century, Ron Paul.
While Dr Paul has gotten some media coverage, essentially he is marginalized by the mainstream media, so called conservative media and political pundits, and the republican party itself and has of late been, in effect, blacked out.
Thus the appeal from the campaign to once again dig deep into our pockets and contribute all we can is all the more relevant considering that the other four candidates get their share of time on the free media outlets. Dr Paul must rely entirely on his grassroots support and whatever advertising he can do; for there are still a majority of people in America that do not know who Ron Paul is.
But this blog is not about where Dr Paul stands on the issues. For that, you can take a look at some of my other blogs or go to his campaign website, http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ , or his house of Representative website, www.house.gov/paul . No, this blog is about a response to that call for further donations.
I am a simple man. I recently celebrated ten years of marriage to my beautiful wife and have two outstanding little girls. I am an elder in my church where we attend on Sundays and Tuesdays. We have exactly one car, a minivan, and through a perfect storm or financial situations, are in a pretty dire finacial predicament. I overextended our financial commitments during the real estate boom and, like not a few people, am in over my head. I have had to try to work out of the home due to some of my wife's emotional and psychological problems. Combine that with the fact that the mortgage business (my trade of late) has really been slowing down and throw in some poor investments and you end up where we are today: living from paycheck to paycheck, knowing that other than the mortgage, the food, gas, and the utilities, there is zero wiggle room for anything else.
In the midst of this comes a real champion of liberty and the constitution. While in this financial turmoil comes Dr Ron Paul. For his campaign and his meesage of true conservatism, liberty, and an honest pledge fo defending the constitution, we have done what we can. We have blogged and written letters to the editor. We have passed out bumper stickers and have them on our car and a sign in our yard. We have talked to friends and family and even gave a whole paragraph of our Christmas letter to promoting Dr Paul! We attend a local meetup group when we can get there and have waved signs at Rudy!
And we have given. We have dug deep like so many others. And now comes yet another call. While we have not really been able to afford it before, we dug deep on Nov 5, Dec 16, and Jan 21. We gave on other days as well, more than what we could afford to do. And yet, because of the dire situation we are in and the threat to life and liberty, property and peace, we must do all we can!
So, as I was readying my debit card for another donation, and idea came to me. A challenge as it were to my fellow Ron Paul supporters. I challenge each one to visit one or more of the sites of my blogs. For each comment left on any of the three sites of the blogs, for each time you leave your "two cents worth," I will donate two cents to the campaign come next Saturday, Feb 2. So, if you comment on one, I will donate $.02. All three, I will donate $.06. (Please don't leave more than one comment per site.) Now that may not seem like a lot but the sky is the limit up to a total of $1,000. Here are the sites:
http://billybernardo.blogspot.com/
http://www.cdapress.com/blogs/?req=read&blogger_id=118&entry_id=578
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=154441227&blogID=351697214
My fellow lovers of liberty and Ron Paul supporters, let's see how much you can get me to give to the campaign. It will take 50,000 comments in a week to get me to give all $1000, but it will only take a little over 13,000 people to do all three to get me to give that total amount.
If I do donate $1000, I must say that it is much more than I can afford at this time. I challenge all to do ALL they can and more for the sake of us and especially our children. Comment and give today!
Showing posts with label 2008 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 election. Show all posts
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Reaction to Last Night's Debate from FLA
In the final debate before the Florida primary, five men seeking their party's nomination were vying for not just Florida votes but for supporters for Super Tuesday and sound bytes to catapult them to free media spots this week.
The most talked about line was Gov Romney's response about hating the idea of having former Pres Clinton in the White House with nothing to do. That was a good one, governor. What was not so good, though, was his clear bumbling of the issue of the second amendment when he said he would support the Brady Bill? UGH!! And what are we to make of "Romney's whisper?" Seems someone somewhere didn't think Romney knew what Tim Russert was asking about and whispered to Romney something about taxes. Listen for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcmFvg24XK4 .
Then there was Rudy, who basically looked like someone who was resigned to losing Florida and the nomination he once was so confident he would win, and Mike Huckabee, who had his wit and charm but perhaps overplayed his down home country bumpkin platitudes when he compared WMDs to Easter Eggs!
Sen McCain, the long time darling of the media, had plenty of questions thrown his way. His answers on particularly economic issues showed that he really doesn't understand the issues. He denied saying that he was not quite the expert on economics (which David Schuster showed he had said in his post-debate "truth squad.) He has flip flopped on the Bush tax cuts even though his rationale for originally voting against them (deficit spending) still definitely applies today. Finally, in attempting to answer a question from Rep Paul, he clearly did not have the foggiest idea what Rep Paul was talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ1OB2iLxcY
So that leaves the one man true to the constitution, Dr Ron Paul. As usual, he had fewer opportunities to speak but was able to answer with conviction and truthfulness as he always does. The people of Florida and the country need to wake up despite the media blackout and vote for the one man right on the war, right on the economy, right on prolife issues, and right on personal liberty. Ron Paul in 2008!
The most talked about line was Gov Romney's response about hating the idea of having former Pres Clinton in the White House with nothing to do. That was a good one, governor. What was not so good, though, was his clear bumbling of the issue of the second amendment when he said he would support the Brady Bill? UGH!! And what are we to make of "Romney's whisper?" Seems someone somewhere didn't think Romney knew what Tim Russert was asking about and whispered to Romney something about taxes. Listen for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcmFvg24XK4 .
Then there was Rudy, who basically looked like someone who was resigned to losing Florida and the nomination he once was so confident he would win, and Mike Huckabee, who had his wit and charm but perhaps overplayed his down home country bumpkin platitudes when he compared WMDs to Easter Eggs!
Sen McCain, the long time darling of the media, had plenty of questions thrown his way. His answers on particularly economic issues showed that he really doesn't understand the issues. He denied saying that he was not quite the expert on economics (which David Schuster showed he had said in his post-debate "truth squad.) He has flip flopped on the Bush tax cuts even though his rationale for originally voting against them (deficit spending) still definitely applies today. Finally, in attempting to answer a question from Rep Paul, he clearly did not have the foggiest idea what Rep Paul was talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ1OB2iLxcY
So that leaves the one man true to the constitution, Dr Ron Paul. As usual, he had fewer opportunities to speak but was able to answer with conviction and truthfulness as he always does. The people of Florida and the country need to wake up despite the media blackout and vote for the one man right on the war, right on the economy, right on prolife issues, and right on personal liberty. Ron Paul in 2008!
Monday, January 7, 2008
John McCain: Conservative, Principled, even Truthful?
A recent turnaround in the polls have now thrust Sen John McCain back into the national presidency scene. Counted out just a couple months ago, he began picking up newspapers endorsements as well as the endorsement of independent senator and recent vice presidential candidate for the democrat party, Sen Joe Lieberman; then he finished in a practical tie for third in Iowa. Now he has been catapulted to the top of the race in New Hampshire. But who is John McCain and should he be the nominee of the republican party?
In 2000, Sen McCain ran a campaign for the GOP nomination, riding his straight talk express. He was the golden boy of the main stream media, for one because whatever he felt, he said; for another, he held some views that were not exactly in step with true conservatism such as his McCain Feigold campaign finance bill and his willingness to NOT support tax cuts like the death tax. He was heralded as an honest politician who, whether you agreed or disagreed with him, told it like he saw it. He pulled the upset in NH then but was beat back in SC by perhaps some trickery by Bush supporters and some plain old realization that he was no true conservative across the board. Sen McCain lost the nomination to then Gov George Bush.
In the years since, Sen McCain got his McCain Feingold through (which I should add is probably THE worst piece of legislation in my lifetime. It denies freedom of speech, freedom of assmbly, and the freedom to do with your money what you see fit to do with it.) He had influence on the Bush administration to extend our involvement in Iraq through the surge. He was one of exactly two GOP senators who voted against the Bush tax cuts. To top it off, he pushed for immigration reform, including in 2003 saying, "I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people...Amnesty has to be an important part, because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens."
Enter John McCain 2007. With all this very unconservative baggage from the past 7 years, he began the race one of the frontrunners, fell in the polls over the summer as he pushed for another immigration bill, and now has grabbed again the roll of front runner. But what ought we to think of John McCain? I will give him "war hero." I will give him a "prolife voting record." What I won't give him is a "conservative," for if nothing else, what is a conservative but at least for cutting taxes? What I won't give him is "principled man," for what kind of man claims the moral high ground on negative ads by not paying for one, yet makes sure a negative ad gets out into the press? (Sounds like another current frontrunner who wants to be looked at as conservative, Mike Huckabee. What a couple of hypocrites!) To top it off, no one despises another candidate personally like McCain dislikes Romney (a close second, Huckabee's dislike of Romney.)
I used to think of John McCain in the way he is characterized by the press. I used to think he was dead wrong on taxes, campaign finance, immigration, etc. yet was principled in that he was consistent and true with his positions. I used to think him a tenacious yet honest moderate. No longer is that the case. With the aforementioned hypocrisy and the fact that just this weekend Sen McCain claimed in the ABC debate that anybody who says he did support amnesty is a "liar, is lying."
So Sen McCain is not just wrong on the issues for conservatives, not just a hypocrite in his campaign, but turns out he is the very liar he calls others.
In 2000, Sen McCain ran a campaign for the GOP nomination, riding his straight talk express. He was the golden boy of the main stream media, for one because whatever he felt, he said; for another, he held some views that were not exactly in step with true conservatism such as his McCain Feigold campaign finance bill and his willingness to NOT support tax cuts like the death tax. He was heralded as an honest politician who, whether you agreed or disagreed with him, told it like he saw it. He pulled the upset in NH then but was beat back in SC by perhaps some trickery by Bush supporters and some plain old realization that he was no true conservative across the board. Sen McCain lost the nomination to then Gov George Bush.
In the years since, Sen McCain got his McCain Feingold through (which I should add is probably THE worst piece of legislation in my lifetime. It denies freedom of speech, freedom of assmbly, and the freedom to do with your money what you see fit to do with it.) He had influence on the Bush administration to extend our involvement in Iraq through the surge. He was one of exactly two GOP senators who voted against the Bush tax cuts. To top it off, he pushed for immigration reform, including in 2003 saying, "I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people...Amnesty has to be an important part, because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens."
Enter John McCain 2007. With all this very unconservative baggage from the past 7 years, he began the race one of the frontrunners, fell in the polls over the summer as he pushed for another immigration bill, and now has grabbed again the roll of front runner. But what ought we to think of John McCain? I will give him "war hero." I will give him a "prolife voting record." What I won't give him is a "conservative," for if nothing else, what is a conservative but at least for cutting taxes? What I won't give him is "principled man," for what kind of man claims the moral high ground on negative ads by not paying for one, yet makes sure a negative ad gets out into the press? (Sounds like another current frontrunner who wants to be looked at as conservative, Mike Huckabee. What a couple of hypocrites!) To top it off, no one despises another candidate personally like McCain dislikes Romney (a close second, Huckabee's dislike of Romney.)
I used to think of John McCain in the way he is characterized by the press. I used to think he was dead wrong on taxes, campaign finance, immigration, etc. yet was principled in that he was consistent and true with his positions. I used to think him a tenacious yet honest moderate. No longer is that the case. With the aforementioned hypocrisy and the fact that just this weekend Sen McCain claimed in the ABC debate that anybody who says he did support amnesty is a "liar, is lying."
So Sen McCain is not just wrong on the issues for conservatives, not just a hypocrite in his campaign, but turns out he is the very liar he calls others.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Forgive Them, for They Know Not What They Do
Quite the night for Gov Huckabee last night in Iowa. With around 34% of the caucus vote, he did even better than predicted and really crushed the competition, especially squelching the hopes of Gov Romney.
If you watched some of the shows last night and even this morning, you will see that there are really two reasons Gov Huckabee did so well in Iowa. One is his ability to communicate. The man admittedly is very witty and can tell a joke with the best of them. But not just with a joke, but with the ability to empathize, to convey the idea that he understands what the hearer is feeling. As with his democratic counterpart, Gov Huckabee preaches something positive, something hopeful, something great.
The other reason Gov Huckabee did so well was his support among evangelical Christians. The "moral majority" kicked it into high gear and voted for Huckabee two to one over Romney and even to a greater degree than the rest. It was with these type of folks that Gov Huckabee learned his craft of "preaching" and communicating. It was with evangelicals that the then Pastor Huckabee would maneuver through all sorts of doubts, sins, and pride to persuade one of the lost sheep to rejoin the fold. The man can connect with evangelicals first, but then to the rest as well.
The one thing noticeably missing from the reasons Gov Huckabee winning was sort of odd, if you think about it. What was missing? Just something little like issues and policy.
That is not to say Gov Huckabee does not have views on issues or policy ideas. Evangelicals love him for his consistent defense of the life of the unborn, the insistence of marriage being between one man and one woman(even to the point of having the federal govt intrude on what has always been in the realm of the state governement.) But it is clear that many of the voters did not consider the issues as much as they thought about Huckabee a "Christian leader," "someone that will be talking to you in your living room over the next four years," "a great communicator," etc.
Is there a problem with this? Is there something wrong with voting for and supporting someone on such basis? Watch the videos of both Gov Huckabee and Sen Obama and you will, according to the pundits, be filled with inspiration as if listening to Lincoln, MLK Jr, or Robert Kennedy. You will sit mesmerized by such an incredible cadence and ability to connect with a crowd. Indeed, you will have an incredible amount of optimism and faith in America! But one thing you won't see in these speeches or others by these men are the issues at hand. There might be allusion to an issue a time or two, but overwhelmingly the speeches are filled with stories, jokes, one liners, and well practiced and well timed vague phrases meant to leave one with awe and wonder, while simultaneously numbing that one's intellect.
I think there is a problem with this. How else can a GOP electorate so enraged with illegal immigration and even the idea of amnesty be enamored with Gov Huckabee when he continues to this day to preach a "pathway to citizenship" (notice the word "amnesty" is absent) and scholarships for illegals? How else can the GOP as a whole be disgusted with the out of control spending of the past seven years of a Bush presidency yet rally behind someone in Huckabee who criticizes the President for vetoing further spending and is the most avid supporter among the candidates for very big programs republicans have been upset about?
I hate to say this but many of those with whom I have associated my whole life, the evangelical Christians (of whom I am one) have been deceived. They have been carried away by a pied piper preacher playing a plentitude of platitudes that, when looked at more closely, is nothing more than a progressive big government liberal who happens to be prolife, progun, and an amazing communicator. Gov Huckabee is no conservative. He is no Jeffersonian that he claims to be. He is not a defender of the constitution. In fact, when his policies and stances are seen for what they are, they absolutely fly in the face of the ideals of small govt, true federalism, conservatism, low taxes, and true constitutionalism. As such, Gov Huckabee is NOT to be trusted when he says his primary job will be to defend the constitution. He is a dishonest man if he ever takes such a vow.
I do not blame the evangelicals per se. They have been slowly fed a bill of goods over many years to believe that there are certain things you have to look at to determine who can be supported and who can't. As such, they tend to forget the constitution as much as the leaders they support; and this is a travesty in liberty.
As I see many deceived, I think back to the prayer of Christ some 2000 years ago as he hung on the cross. Praying for those who were his sheep who had gotten involved in the physical crucifixion of the savior of the world, He asked God to forgive them, for they knew not what they had done. Thus, as so many were doing something they thought was so moral, so right, so within the will of God, and yet so mistaken, I saddened within myself and asked my Father to do the same for those who are is. To forgive them the sin of standing up for and defending someone so dishonest to say he defends the constitution and yet truly opposes it with nearly every policy and issue he puts forth. I pray He forgives me for being part of such in my life.
If you watched some of the shows last night and even this morning, you will see that there are really two reasons Gov Huckabee did so well in Iowa. One is his ability to communicate. The man admittedly is very witty and can tell a joke with the best of them. But not just with a joke, but with the ability to empathize, to convey the idea that he understands what the hearer is feeling. As with his democratic counterpart, Gov Huckabee preaches something positive, something hopeful, something great.
The other reason Gov Huckabee did so well was his support among evangelical Christians. The "moral majority" kicked it into high gear and voted for Huckabee two to one over Romney and even to a greater degree than the rest. It was with these type of folks that Gov Huckabee learned his craft of "preaching" and communicating. It was with evangelicals that the then Pastor Huckabee would maneuver through all sorts of doubts, sins, and pride to persuade one of the lost sheep to rejoin the fold. The man can connect with evangelicals first, but then to the rest as well.
The one thing noticeably missing from the reasons Gov Huckabee winning was sort of odd, if you think about it. What was missing? Just something little like issues and policy.
That is not to say Gov Huckabee does not have views on issues or policy ideas. Evangelicals love him for his consistent defense of the life of the unborn, the insistence of marriage being between one man and one woman(even to the point of having the federal govt intrude on what has always been in the realm of the state governement.) But it is clear that many of the voters did not consider the issues as much as they thought about Huckabee a "Christian leader," "someone that will be talking to you in your living room over the next four years," "a great communicator," etc.
Is there a problem with this? Is there something wrong with voting for and supporting someone on such basis? Watch the videos of both Gov Huckabee and Sen Obama and you will, according to the pundits, be filled with inspiration as if listening to Lincoln, MLK Jr, or Robert Kennedy. You will sit mesmerized by such an incredible cadence and ability to connect with a crowd. Indeed, you will have an incredible amount of optimism and faith in America! But one thing you won't see in these speeches or others by these men are the issues at hand. There might be allusion to an issue a time or two, but overwhelmingly the speeches are filled with stories, jokes, one liners, and well practiced and well timed vague phrases meant to leave one with awe and wonder, while simultaneously numbing that one's intellect.
I think there is a problem with this. How else can a GOP electorate so enraged with illegal immigration and even the idea of amnesty be enamored with Gov Huckabee when he continues to this day to preach a "pathway to citizenship" (notice the word "amnesty" is absent) and scholarships for illegals? How else can the GOP as a whole be disgusted with the out of control spending of the past seven years of a Bush presidency yet rally behind someone in Huckabee who criticizes the President for vetoing further spending and is the most avid supporter among the candidates for very big programs republicans have been upset about?
I hate to say this but many of those with whom I have associated my whole life, the evangelical Christians (of whom I am one) have been deceived. They have been carried away by a pied piper preacher playing a plentitude of platitudes that, when looked at more closely, is nothing more than a progressive big government liberal who happens to be prolife, progun, and an amazing communicator. Gov Huckabee is no conservative. He is no Jeffersonian that he claims to be. He is not a defender of the constitution. In fact, when his policies and stances are seen for what they are, they absolutely fly in the face of the ideals of small govt, true federalism, conservatism, low taxes, and true constitutionalism. As such, Gov Huckabee is NOT to be trusted when he says his primary job will be to defend the constitution. He is a dishonest man if he ever takes such a vow.
I do not blame the evangelicals per se. They have been slowly fed a bill of goods over many years to believe that there are certain things you have to look at to determine who can be supported and who can't. As such, they tend to forget the constitution as much as the leaders they support; and this is a travesty in liberty.
As I see many deceived, I think back to the prayer of Christ some 2000 years ago as he hung on the cross. Praying for those who were his sheep who had gotten involved in the physical crucifixion of the savior of the world, He asked God to forgive them, for they knew not what they had done. Thus, as so many were doing something they thought was so moral, so right, so within the will of God, and yet so mistaken, I saddened within myself and asked my Father to do the same for those who are is. To forgive them the sin of standing up for and defending someone so dishonest to say he defends the constitution and yet truly opposes it with nearly every policy and issue he puts forth. I pray He forgives me for being part of such in my life.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
The Chances of a Long Shot
First of all, Happy New Year to all! A new year, a new hope, a new page.
A year ago, I NEVER would have thought that I would be supporting ANY presidential candidate, much less one that has hopes to finish top four in Iowa and New Hampshire. Yes, Ron Paul has been a long shot since day one, but think where he has come from in the past year. On Jan 1, 2007, my best hope had been for several years was that George Mason economist, author, commentator, Rush Limbaugh substitute Walter Williams would perhaps run for president. I didn't think it was a serious thought on his part, but it was someone I could say I would support if someone asked me. It had never occurred to me that Rep Ron Paul, who I have followed for some five years, would enter the race, especially considering that he may very well have been President Bush's most constant critic.
A couple weeks into January, I read online a pretty likely rumor that Dr Paul would be running for the republican nomination and I was ecstatic! I could hardly believe what I was reading, that this true and tried, consistent conservative constitutionalist would be running. Now, I admit I had no fake optimism that he would win, but I was tired of supporting someone on the basis of the "lesser of two evil" argument, so I determined I would support Dr Paul with all that I had.
That was January and little did I know what was ahead in the year to come. Not only did he take apart in all but one of the republican debates, but the post debate polls (unscientific) all put him as the winner of the debates. Clearly, it was not because Dr Paul was a better joke or story teller, the great giver of one liners, or even the most articulate. It was because of his message of liberty, freedom, and little government intervention, both personally and abroad. The message resonated and spread like a wild fire. Dr Paul went on to set fundraising records, not once but twice (Nov 5 and Dec 16.) Again, it was not because of any emotional plea by Dr Paul or some well crafted oration, appealing to the heartstrings. No, it was the message that inspired a few to rally those now embracing freedom to give at a time when the giving is hard, when the economy is faltering. Paul also did very well among the many straw polls across the nation. He exceeded expectations in all of them and in many cases, winning them.
And yet, though the straw polls were a huge success, the giving was record breaking, and the debates were won, Dr Paul was still considered a "long-shot" and labelled a "flake" or a "crack pot" by many in the mainstream media and rank and file republicans. Granted, they did indeed point to national polls but are they any more accurate than the post debate unscientific polls or straw polls when they (the national polls) are skewed toward typical GOP voters from 2004-2006 while many of Dr Paul's supporters either were disillusioned republicans (like myself) who didn't vote republican in 2004, other party members such as libertarians or democrats who now registered as republicans, or simply were too young to vote in the last elections?
But as if labelling someone a long-shot or flake wasn't enough, the media seemed to be extremely determined to make sure they stacked the odds further against Dr Paul. Not only was there very little notice of most of the straw polls won, but the post debate wins were mocked out of hand and the biggest day in fundraising history received hardly a blip on the media screen. (Turns out it was not as big as Sen Lieberman endorsing sen McCain according to the press.) But the bias goes further. In the debates, there were certain candidates ALWAYS centered in the middle of the stage and always receiving twice as many opportunities to speak as compared to the others relegated to the far wings of the platform. And when Dr Paul was afforded interview or debate questions, many times at least one of the questions was inevitably not on his views, not on policy, but on why he was running as a republican or if he would run third party or not when he did not receive the nomination. Now we get word of a Foxnews "forum," (yes the same Foxnews which claims to be fair and balanced, the same Foxnews whose logo is flanked by the slogan, "We Report, You Decide") which will be held just days before the New Hampshire primary, that will not include Dr Paul and others.
How can one think anything but that the press is biased against Dr Paul? Whether it be for simply the reason that they don't see him a possibility (like George Stephanopoulos telling Rep Paul point blank to Paul's goal of winning, "That's not gonna happen.") to something more sinister.
The deck has been stacked against Dr Paul. While a few commentators have had some good things to say about him (Tucker, Neapolitano, Cafferty, etc), most of the others simply ignore him (Keith Olbermann, the most upset about the war of any commentator, has said extremely little about Paul while Paul is the CLEAR choice among either party's potential nominees to bring the troops home NOW) or take it a step further to deriding him (Schuster, Hannity, Kristol, Beck.)
The press chooses what stories are newsworthy and which aren't, which candidates they think are newsworthy and which aren't. It chooses to cover certain candidates overwhelmingly in both parties. There are a few in both parties that can cry out that they have not received a "fair amount" of coverage. However, I don't see another candidate with so much popularity online, at straw polls, in contributions, waving signs, showing up to opponent's events, etc who has been so incredibly left out of the mainstream discussion. This proves to me that there is, for whatever reason, a real bias in the media against Dr Paul. This bias is probably deliberate among some, though for most it is simply because they have been told over and over, "Here are the ones who are the possiblities" and Dr Paul is not among them.
Does this make Ron Paul an even longer shot at the presidency? For some, the answer is yes, that this bias has kept many from hearing the message of Dr Paul. It has painted him as a extremist, a crack pot who is not to be trusted. For others, being the object of bias just makes them all the more determined to get the word out about the real Dr Paul, the one devoted to freedom, family, and country.
For me, I cannot say. I am not one, after all is said and done, to believe in chance at all. I believe in providence, that God will work out all things according to His purpose. That said, when faced with the clarity of this bias against Dr Paul, I admit I am filled with righteous indignation, an indignation that drives me all the more to further support his campaign with all that I am. And perhaps this very bias will be used as a way the American people will wake up to see how far this country has strayed and how desperately it needs to return to the ideals of God given rights, freedom, and the constitution.
A year ago, I NEVER would have thought that I would be supporting ANY presidential candidate, much less one that has hopes to finish top four in Iowa and New Hampshire. Yes, Ron Paul has been a long shot since day one, but think where he has come from in the past year. On Jan 1, 2007, my best hope had been for several years was that George Mason economist, author, commentator, Rush Limbaugh substitute Walter Williams would perhaps run for president. I didn't think it was a serious thought on his part, but it was someone I could say I would support if someone asked me. It had never occurred to me that Rep Ron Paul, who I have followed for some five years, would enter the race, especially considering that he may very well have been President Bush's most constant critic.
A couple weeks into January, I read online a pretty likely rumor that Dr Paul would be running for the republican nomination and I was ecstatic! I could hardly believe what I was reading, that this true and tried, consistent conservative constitutionalist would be running. Now, I admit I had no fake optimism that he would win, but I was tired of supporting someone on the basis of the "lesser of two evil" argument, so I determined I would support Dr Paul with all that I had.
That was January and little did I know what was ahead in the year to come. Not only did he take apart in all but one of the republican debates, but the post debate polls (unscientific) all put him as the winner of the debates. Clearly, it was not because Dr Paul was a better joke or story teller, the great giver of one liners, or even the most articulate. It was because of his message of liberty, freedom, and little government intervention, both personally and abroad. The message resonated and spread like a wild fire. Dr Paul went on to set fundraising records, not once but twice (Nov 5 and Dec 16.) Again, it was not because of any emotional plea by Dr Paul or some well crafted oration, appealing to the heartstrings. No, it was the message that inspired a few to rally those now embracing freedom to give at a time when the giving is hard, when the economy is faltering. Paul also did very well among the many straw polls across the nation. He exceeded expectations in all of them and in many cases, winning them.
And yet, though the straw polls were a huge success, the giving was record breaking, and the debates were won, Dr Paul was still considered a "long-shot" and labelled a "flake" or a "crack pot" by many in the mainstream media and rank and file republicans. Granted, they did indeed point to national polls but are they any more accurate than the post debate unscientific polls or straw polls when they (the national polls) are skewed toward typical GOP voters from 2004-2006 while many of Dr Paul's supporters either were disillusioned republicans (like myself) who didn't vote republican in 2004, other party members such as libertarians or democrats who now registered as republicans, or simply were too young to vote in the last elections?
But as if labelling someone a long-shot or flake wasn't enough, the media seemed to be extremely determined to make sure they stacked the odds further against Dr Paul. Not only was there very little notice of most of the straw polls won, but the post debate wins were mocked out of hand and the biggest day in fundraising history received hardly a blip on the media screen. (Turns out it was not as big as Sen Lieberman endorsing sen McCain according to the press.) But the bias goes further. In the debates, there were certain candidates ALWAYS centered in the middle of the stage and always receiving twice as many opportunities to speak as compared to the others relegated to the far wings of the platform. And when Dr Paul was afforded interview or debate questions, many times at least one of the questions was inevitably not on his views, not on policy, but on why he was running as a republican or if he would run third party or not when he did not receive the nomination. Now we get word of a Foxnews "forum," (yes the same Foxnews which claims to be fair and balanced, the same Foxnews whose logo is flanked by the slogan, "We Report, You Decide") which will be held just days before the New Hampshire primary, that will not include Dr Paul and others.
How can one think anything but that the press is biased against Dr Paul? Whether it be for simply the reason that they don't see him a possibility (like George Stephanopoulos telling Rep Paul point blank to Paul's goal of winning, "That's not gonna happen.") to something more sinister.
The deck has been stacked against Dr Paul. While a few commentators have had some good things to say about him (Tucker, Neapolitano, Cafferty, etc), most of the others simply ignore him (Keith Olbermann, the most upset about the war of any commentator, has said extremely little about Paul while Paul is the CLEAR choice among either party's potential nominees to bring the troops home NOW) or take it a step further to deriding him (Schuster, Hannity, Kristol, Beck.)
The press chooses what stories are newsworthy and which aren't, which candidates they think are newsworthy and which aren't. It chooses to cover certain candidates overwhelmingly in both parties. There are a few in both parties that can cry out that they have not received a "fair amount" of coverage. However, I don't see another candidate with so much popularity online, at straw polls, in contributions, waving signs, showing up to opponent's events, etc who has been so incredibly left out of the mainstream discussion. This proves to me that there is, for whatever reason, a real bias in the media against Dr Paul. This bias is probably deliberate among some, though for most it is simply because they have been told over and over, "Here are the ones who are the possiblities" and Dr Paul is not among them.
Does this make Ron Paul an even longer shot at the presidency? For some, the answer is yes, that this bias has kept many from hearing the message of Dr Paul. It has painted him as a extremist, a crack pot who is not to be trusted. For others, being the object of bias just makes them all the more determined to get the word out about the real Dr Paul, the one devoted to freedom, family, and country.
For me, I cannot say. I am not one, after all is said and done, to believe in chance at all. I believe in providence, that God will work out all things according to His purpose. That said, when faced with the clarity of this bias against Dr Paul, I admit I am filled with righteous indignation, an indignation that drives me all the more to further support his campaign with all that I am. And perhaps this very bias will be used as a way the American people will wake up to see how far this country has strayed and how desperately it needs to return to the ideals of God given rights, freedom, and the constitution.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Threat of Islamofascism
Islamofascism. If you said this word prior to Sept 11, 2001, people would have looked at you like you were either nuts or some sort of college professor. Nowadays, it is an accepted term in the political vernacular used to describe the ideology of those muslims who wish to force strict adherence to the Koran upon ALL the world. There are certainly those among all the major religions of the world who seek the domination of the world by their religion. The Pope sees himself as ruler of the world. There are those within protestantism that are seeking the physical dominion of the whole world under the law of God. But islamofascism is different in that the adherents of such philosophy seek the "death of the west" and uses physical threats, terrorism, and anything else at their disposal to destroy anything judeo-christian and eventually anything that is not in accord with the Koran. There are indeed islamofascists and they have a passion for annihilating all things akin to western civilization.
Let me use an illustration. When I was in ninth grade, my mother had moved my brother and me close to family in New York State. I was new to the school, naturally shy, and the first few weeks really kept to myself. Several of the first few people to "greet" me were a part of the "clique" affectionately known as the "Burnouts." These were kids on the outs from most of the other kids and took to things like smokes, drugs, alcohol, heavy metal, and denim jackets at a greater proportion than the rest of us. They also enjoyed threatening people. On a few occasions during those first few weeks, I was threatened to be dumped in a trash can, beat up, and on one occasion told that after school, I was going to be "dead" after standing up to one. Now, I was a decent size guy even at 14 and clearly when I stood up to them in strength, there really was no threat in the sense that it would or could actually occur. Sure the one guy said I was going to die, but did I die that afternoon? Did he even try to kill me? Did we even see each other? No.
We hear many a threat throughout our lifetime. But it is not truly threatening UNLESS we believe there is truly an intent to carry it out AND the ability to carry it out. So it is in the world in which we live. We hear threats all the time. This nation here or that group there calling out "Death to America" or burning our president in effigy. Now, if we are to react to all these threats simply because they are spoken, then we will be on the offensive EVERYWHERE in the world and even within our own borders. And the more we go on such offensives, the more these supposed threats will increase.
But what if the person, group, or nation has no way of following through on such threat? Listen to the so-called conservative pundits and every Tom, Dick, and Harry (or should it be every Muhammed, Mahmud, and Abdul) that rattles off a curse of the US has the capability to destroy the west and therefore needs to have his country destroyed and we prop up a government loyal to us.
So what is the answer? Those of us who adhere to a "non-interventionist" policy are accused of being soft on terror and that we are "taking our marching orders from the enemy." But isn't killing or imprisoning anyone who ever curses us truly "taking marching orders?" The islamofascists want us to attack, want us to occupy, want us to go after them for what greater rallying cry is there to the rest of the muslim world to join their cause in hating the west and seeking an islamic world?
Without our bombing there is NO rally cry for those few who truly espouse the islamofascist worldview. Without our attacking and/ or sanctioning, there is no appeal to the average middle easterner who simply wants to do what every man wants to do, live his life in peace. Without our occupation, there is no way to recruit others in droves to the terrorist martyrdom that so many now embrace.
The motivation of islamofascism is real but the ability to carry out such world domination dreams is not. Only by our constant intervention in other nations around the world is there even the possibility that that muslim minority which holds this can persuade the majority of muslims in the rest of the world to rise up and seek this islamis world order.
But what is the real threat of these islamofascists? Or should I ask, when does one who spouts hatred, curses, and threats become one that is now so threatening that we must take action? Should we consider anyone, anywhere, a serious threat, when they threaten us?
Let me use an illustration. When I was in ninth grade, my mother had moved my brother and me close to family in New York State. I was new to the school, naturally shy, and the first few weeks really kept to myself. Several of the first few people to "greet" me were a part of the "clique" affectionately known as the "Burnouts." These were kids on the outs from most of the other kids and took to things like smokes, drugs, alcohol, heavy metal, and denim jackets at a greater proportion than the rest of us. They also enjoyed threatening people. On a few occasions during those first few weeks, I was threatened to be dumped in a trash can, beat up, and on one occasion told that after school, I was going to be "dead" after standing up to one. Now, I was a decent size guy even at 14 and clearly when I stood up to them in strength, there really was no threat in the sense that it would or could actually occur. Sure the one guy said I was going to die, but did I die that afternoon? Did he even try to kill me? Did we even see each other? No.
We hear many a threat throughout our lifetime. But it is not truly threatening UNLESS we believe there is truly an intent to carry it out AND the ability to carry it out. So it is in the world in which we live. We hear threats all the time. This nation here or that group there calling out "Death to America" or burning our president in effigy. Now, if we are to react to all these threats simply because they are spoken, then we will be on the offensive EVERYWHERE in the world and even within our own borders. And the more we go on such offensives, the more these supposed threats will increase.
But what if the person, group, or nation has no way of following through on such threat? Listen to the so-called conservative pundits and every Tom, Dick, and Harry (or should it be every Muhammed, Mahmud, and Abdul) that rattles off a curse of the US has the capability to destroy the west and therefore needs to have his country destroyed and we prop up a government loyal to us.
So what is the answer? Those of us who adhere to a "non-interventionist" policy are accused of being soft on terror and that we are "taking our marching orders from the enemy." But isn't killing or imprisoning anyone who ever curses us truly "taking marching orders?" The islamofascists want us to attack, want us to occupy, want us to go after them for what greater rallying cry is there to the rest of the muslim world to join their cause in hating the west and seeking an islamic world?
Without our bombing there is NO rally cry for those few who truly espouse the islamofascist worldview. Without our attacking and/ or sanctioning, there is no appeal to the average middle easterner who simply wants to do what every man wants to do, live his life in peace. Without our occupation, there is no way to recruit others in droves to the terrorist martyrdom that so many now embrace.
The motivation of islamofascism is real but the ability to carry out such world domination dreams is not. Only by our constant intervention in other nations around the world is there even the possibility that that muslim minority which holds this can persuade the majority of muslims in the rest of the world to rise up and seek this islamis world order.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Ron Paul, 6 Million Dollar Man
Unbelievable. That is sometimes a trite word but it certainly applies to fundraising results of Dr Ron Paul's December 16 Tea Party. Imagine, a second tier candidate who holds what many consider either outlandish, out of bounds, or outdated ideas raking in that kind of manoy with three weeks to go to Iowa. That also puts him at around $18 million for the quarter with $20 million in sight.
What about Ron Paul stirs up this kind of emotion and passion? After all, it is one thing to put a bumper sticker on your car, support one candidate over another, or even donate $20. But to pull in this kind of money from people of all walks of life, from all over the political spectrum is amazing. I mean, if you pull five donors at random, you are likely to get people from the far left left, far right, and everywhere in between supporting his candidacy. You might have a Bible believing pro life evangelical, a pot head, a conspiracy theorist, a gold standard sound money economist, and an antiwar activist. What draws them together in this epitome of "Politics makes strange bedfellows?"
I believe there are three common denominators among most, if not all Ron Paul supporters. These three are related yet distinct and all have to do primarily with the role of government. They are strict constitutionalism, belief in decentralization of govt, and a basic mistrust of govt.
Strict constitutionalism is the view that when our founders signed our constitution, there was a definite intent in following it in the most strict and literal way. Also, when an office holder takes a vow to defend the constitution, he or she is swearing to uphold this in its literal sense and ought to support and vote in such a way that the constitution is not compromised, even when it might go against public opinion or even one's own opinion.
Belief in decentralization of government simply means a philosphical belief that the "higher" in government you go, the less involvement in our personal lives, that government ought to be. For example, it is one thing for a local government to be involved in education through the school board but it is entirely inappropriate for the federal government to have a say in the issue.
Mistrust of Government is not something you hear much of these days but it is very simple. It means that you are wary of the rules, laws, bills of government and that its citizens ought to keep a careful eye on the government to avoid abuses. the old saying has been proven true time and again. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Now, if you read our founding fathers on these issues, you read of all three of these in all of their writings. We are to have a healthy mistrust of government and therefore establish checks and balances in the levels of government and the branches of govt. We are to basically have a view toward decentralization and put more responsibility in the lower levels of govt rather than the higher levels. Of course, we are to abide by our constitution literally, which puts in place checks, balances, and limitations because of the mistrust of govt and the protection of the powers of the more local governments from the federal governement.
The candidacy of Ron Paul echoes back to these ideas and the founding fathers. Listen to Ron Paul speak and you might hear what our founders believed and were willing to die for. Pay careful attention to these themes and on any issue, the proverbial light will go on in your head. You will see how, on every issue and at all times, this humble little man is speaking the truths of America, the constitution, and freedom. No wonder he is the 6 Million Dollar Man today!
What about Ron Paul stirs up this kind of emotion and passion? After all, it is one thing to put a bumper sticker on your car, support one candidate over another, or even donate $20. But to pull in this kind of money from people of all walks of life, from all over the political spectrum is amazing. I mean, if you pull five donors at random, you are likely to get people from the far left left, far right, and everywhere in between supporting his candidacy. You might have a Bible believing pro life evangelical, a pot head, a conspiracy theorist, a gold standard sound money economist, and an antiwar activist. What draws them together in this epitome of "Politics makes strange bedfellows?"
I believe there are three common denominators among most, if not all Ron Paul supporters. These three are related yet distinct and all have to do primarily with the role of government. They are strict constitutionalism, belief in decentralization of govt, and a basic mistrust of govt.
Strict constitutionalism is the view that when our founders signed our constitution, there was a definite intent in following it in the most strict and literal way. Also, when an office holder takes a vow to defend the constitution, he or she is swearing to uphold this in its literal sense and ought to support and vote in such a way that the constitution is not compromised, even when it might go against public opinion or even one's own opinion.
Belief in decentralization of government simply means a philosphical belief that the "higher" in government you go, the less involvement in our personal lives, that government ought to be. For example, it is one thing for a local government to be involved in education through the school board but it is entirely inappropriate for the federal government to have a say in the issue.
Mistrust of Government is not something you hear much of these days but it is very simple. It means that you are wary of the rules, laws, bills of government and that its citizens ought to keep a careful eye on the government to avoid abuses. the old saying has been proven true time and again. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Now, if you read our founding fathers on these issues, you read of all three of these in all of their writings. We are to have a healthy mistrust of government and therefore establish checks and balances in the levels of government and the branches of govt. We are to basically have a view toward decentralization and put more responsibility in the lower levels of govt rather than the higher levels. Of course, we are to abide by our constitution literally, which puts in place checks, balances, and limitations because of the mistrust of govt and the protection of the powers of the more local governments from the federal governement.
The candidacy of Ron Paul echoes back to these ideas and the founding fathers. Listen to Ron Paul speak and you might hear what our founders believed and were willing to die for. Pay careful attention to these themes and on any issue, the proverbial light will go on in your head. You will see how, on every issue and at all times, this humble little man is speaking the truths of America, the constitution, and freedom. No wonder he is the 6 Million Dollar Man today!
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Open Letter to Fellow Ron Paul Supporters
Hello all,
I opened up the paper today to look for a letter to the editor from my pastor, Jon Smith of Post Falls Presbyterian. (Just FYI, if ever you want to attend a service much akin to one from the revolutionary times, join us!) In case you didn't catch it, it was a reprint of a letter to Gov Otter telling him of a very brief conversation Pastor Smith had with a local National Guard recruit at the mall. He asked him if he would go door to door confiscating guns if ever he were told to do so to which the national guardsmen responded, "I would follow orders."
ANYWAY, I was a little surprised to see a second letter from someone pretty well known in our community as a "White Pride" man and self pronounced "conspiratologist," Richard Masker. Now, everyone should be, WITHIN their realm of influence, speaking up and out for Ron Paul. The prolife evangelical in his churc h, the militia man in his regiment, the CTer in his 911 conspiracy theory meetup, the anarchists at their flag burning times, the pro drug crowd when they are burning something else, the economist when he talks $$ over cigars and brandy. I know I am stereotyping but I am angry when we take this outside our realm of influence and talk about Ron Paul wanting to expose some sort of neo Bolshevik conspiracy. I really feel this is completely counter productive and playing into the hands of those who are just licking their chops to label Ron Paul a nazi flag carrying member of the aryan nation.
So, I appeal to all of your better judgement. While I want Ron Paul to be president of all the people of the US, no matter creed, color, or culture, I think we all need to be very careful in what ways we seek to support Dr Paul's candidacy. I, for one, do not want to hear about how building 7 was brought down by explosives, how the illuminati masons are in some small room pulling the strings of the nations, or how Ron Paul is secretly running for the libertarian nomination. These kinds of conjectures have no place in serious campaigns. Is there not enough problems with the system (as is clearly seen) to deal with. Is the war in Iraq, our failing dollar, an out of control judiciary, a hell bent IRS, wire tapping, illegal searches, torture, GITMO, Roe v Wade, the ATF, CIA, FBI, NAFTA, the NAU, the shutting down of the liberty dollar, the federal reserve, the Patriot Act, federal program after federal program, the national ID card, and all the rest NOT ENOUGH for some of you?
Bill
I opened up the paper today to look for a letter to the editor from my pastor, Jon Smith of Post Falls Presbyterian. (Just FYI, if ever you want to attend a service much akin to one from the revolutionary times, join us!) In case you didn't catch it, it was a reprint of a letter to Gov Otter telling him of a very brief conversation Pastor Smith had with a local National Guard recruit at the mall. He asked him if he would go door to door confiscating guns if ever he were told to do so to which the national guardsmen responded, "I would follow orders."
ANYWAY, I was a little surprised to see a second letter from someone pretty well known in our community as a "White Pride" man and self pronounced "conspiratologist," Richard Masker. Now, everyone should be, WITHIN their realm of influence, speaking up and out for Ron Paul. The prolife evangelical in his churc h, the militia man in his regiment, the CTer in his 911 conspiracy theory meetup, the anarchists at their flag burning times, the pro drug crowd when they are burning something else, the economist when he talks $$ over cigars and brandy. I know I am stereotyping but I am angry when we take this outside our realm of influence and talk about Ron Paul wanting to expose some sort of neo Bolshevik conspiracy. I really feel this is completely counter productive and playing into the hands of those who are just licking their chops to label Ron Paul a nazi flag carrying member of the aryan nation.
So, I appeal to all of your better judgement. While I want Ron Paul to be president of all the people of the US, no matter creed, color, or culture, I think we all need to be very careful in what ways we seek to support Dr Paul's candidacy. I, for one, do not want to hear about how building 7 was brought down by explosives, how the illuminati masons are in some small room pulling the strings of the nations, or how Ron Paul is secretly running for the libertarian nomination. These kinds of conjectures have no place in serious campaigns. Is there not enough problems with the system (as is clearly seen) to deal with. Is the war in Iraq, our failing dollar, an out of control judiciary, a hell bent IRS, wire tapping, illegal searches, torture, GITMO, Roe v Wade, the ATF, CIA, FBI, NAFTA, the NAU, the shutting down of the liberty dollar, the federal reserve, the Patriot Act, federal program after federal program, the national ID card, and all the rest NOT ENOUGH for some of you?
Bill
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Who Should Christians Vote for in 08?
I think as we look at Romans 13 we see we are commanded to submit to authority. Most Christians believe this to mean that we are to obey our leaders in everything unless they tell us to sin or forbid us to do something we are required to do. But this is not so, for when we look at Acts 16, we see something very out of place with this thinking. We see magistrates commanding Paul and Silas to leave quietly because the leaders found out they had had them beaten as Roman citizens. Now, the command to leave, was that commanding them to sin? No. Forbidding them to do something required? Not on the surface. So we must rethink what Romans 13 means...when told to submit to authority, does it mean to obey the physical men who hold office OR something bigger, the law of the land? Well, the text in Acts 13 leads us to believe that indeed when submitting we are submitting to the law of the land, NOT necessarily those in office. When those in public office follow the law of the land, they are to be obeyed. When they fall from that ideal, we are to hold them to such law of the land.
What is our "law of the land" but the US Constitution of course? In light of this, which candidate reflects most consistently abiding by that constitution and thus following the command from God to submit to the authority God has put over us? The only honest answer, my friend, is Ron Paul.
What is our "law of the land" but the US Constitution of course? In light of this, which candidate reflects most consistently abiding by that constitution and thus following the command from God to submit to the authority God has put over us? The only honest answer, my friend, is Ron Paul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)