I'm still voting

For Ron Paul.















looks like this came from deesillustrations.com.

Sins of omission

This is not the first time I have disagreed with Fr. Pavone. I respect his work to defend the un-born, but he gets in over his head when he veers into politics. His latest column, And What I Have Failed To Do is a good example. He doesn't come out and say it, but I believe he is advocating a vote for McCain. Anything less would be a sin of omission.

Thankfully his is a priest. In charge of hearing confessions, not telling us what we should confess. A vote for McCain is a vote to destroy the pro-life plank (as well as many other conservative ideals) in the GOP platform. I think his eventual nomination is already the death knell of the Republican party. Who needs another liberal, fiscally irresponsible party. The Democrats have that base cemented in (see Obama's reaffirmation of the party only unchanging plank.)

Me? I won't call any vote a sin. I don't know anyone's heart or conscience. But I know I can't vote for anyone that supports abortion. That narrows the field considerably. I am not confident of McCain's stance on that issue, but he claims to be pro-life. So I look at the other issues. And I won't vote for him based on those issues. Pro-nation building. Pro-big government. Anti-freedom. Pro-amnesty. That is enough for me to still vote Ron Paul. He may not win, but the GOP can look at all the votes they "could" have had.

Down goes Fraizer

Well, it isn't quite as monumental as that fight, but

Down goes Romney. (via Huckleberries) I would say it was a surprise, but not really. Bush-Romney-McCain-Huckabee are all made from the same dough. Just rolled in a different topping, Romney had the financial sparkles, McCain is the crusty old glaze, Huckabee is the sugar topping for the shallow evangelical type.

Romney's step back is just proof that it isn't about conservative values, but about being "Republican". Not that the name means much anymore, but as long as they can fool the voters and the media keeps up the the "Republican vs Democrat/Conservative vs Liberal" reporting, no one will realize how they are part of the same party. The ruling class party. As my wife succinctly put it, sounds like an "Establishment" type of move.

One another note, Ron Paul did well in my native North Dakota. He actually won the district caucus that my parents are in. By 5 votes. My parents, sister and her husband and their son.

And to think my parents were die hard Bush fans not that long ago. They might not admit it, but they are coming around. And rather quickly.

Kooks and crazies

We braved the weather with all the other "kooks and crazies" to go see Ron Paul in Spokane. About 1000 people there by my estimation, 300 chairs were filled and the other half of the room was standing room only. And filled to the back. We got the last chair, given to the nursing mother of course, while the other two of us stood behind the chairs, pretty good "seats" as we could see well.

The message was outstanding, only disappointment was that Dr. Paul had to hustle out right after his speech on his way to another stop. My wife would have loved to shake his hand, perhaps a picture with him and our little girl (in her "Ron Paul didn't deliver me, but it isn't too late." onesie.) I will analyze the speech a bit more this weekend, but it was mainly on a financial tone. And he gave a solution to our financial woes. More on that later.

being judicial

In anticipation of Ron Paul's visit tomorrow, I will leave you with some wisdom on Politics and Judicial Activism — Ron Paul 2008

Book it

Looks like Ron Paul headed for Spokane. Get the babysitter Ethel, Dr. No is coming to town.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is expected in Spokane Thursday evening for a speech at the downtown Double Tree Hotel.

Local organizers of the Paul campaign said the candidate -- who arguably has the most visible support in Spokane if that can be judged by yard signs -- will be come here after a stop in Seattle.

The visit it timed to help build support for the Feb. 9 GOP precinct caucuses and the Feb. 19 primary.

The event is free, with doors opening at 5 p.m. for the rally and speech.

Could it be

That the powers that be in the GOP are getting a bit worried? Enough for foul play? Dunno, you be the judge. Paul Alleges Boondoggle on the Bayou.

Ron Paul came in second in Louisiana, but could it have been first? You won't hear about it floating down the mainstream media.

McCorvey endorses Paul

Looks like the word on the street came to pass as Norma McCorvey of Roe Abortion Case Endorses Ron Paul for President

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Before the March for Life this morning Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the infamous abortion case that allowed unlimited abortions nationwide, backed Ron Paul fo the GOP presidential nomination. McCorvey is now pro-life and she says Ron Paul is the best candidate to make sure abortion is no more.
...
"Ron Paul doesn't just talk about being pro-life, he acts on it. His voting record truly is impeccable and he undoubtedly understands our constitutional republic and the inalienable right to life for all," McCorvey added.

Match maker

Hopefully we have a match, Ron Paul and Jane Roe

The word on the street, with regard to tomorrow's March for Life, is that Norma Leah McCorvey, Jane Roe of the infamous Roe v. Wade, is going to hold a press conference with Dr. Paul at 10:30am at the Phoenix Park Hotel on the Hill.

According to David Freddoso at National Review Online, "The campaign would not directly answer whether she's going to endorse Paul, but they sure hinted at it."

missing element

Notice the missing element here as the GOP presidential race turns to Florida? Find the missing candidate, the candidate that has beaten Giuliani in every state so far, the candidate that got second in Nevada, the candidate everyone wants to forget. Except for the voters of course. Of course it is Ron Paul.

They would rather talk about Giuliani who has disappointed everywhere and has camp out in warm weather Florida waiting for a miracle. Much rather talk about Thompson who has yet to even start his campaign. Perhaps they should start asking Giuliani if he will run as an independent. He fits the bill of an fence straddler better than Dr. Paul anyway.

Down goes Huckabee

At least that is my prediction after his latestcomments on the Constitution. I have said it before, and will say it again. Huckabee isn't a conservative, but a big government Republican. And with this line, he is bordering on being the dreaded Theocrat.

He said abortion is one of just two areas "where I believe we ought to amend the Constitution right now. But I do believe we should and settle this issue of having 50 states running around trying to decide what's right and what's wrong in relationship to the sanctity of human life and the dignity and worth of people.".
..

"The Constitution is a document -- it's a living, breathing document written in order that it could be changed," Huckabee explained.

Could be the Washington beltway just wants to feed the Us vs. Them mentality. The democrats scream about Bush being a theocrat and so the other side must want one of them.

What is a deeper problem is his "50 states" line. The Bill of Rights settles that with the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So give me Ron Paul and his respect for my rights.

Ron Paul quote for the day

From his issues section on Racism

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.

The Huckabee problem

On first blush, hearing his responses in the early debates, I liked Huckabee.  Not as much as Ron Paul, but he was one of the few candidates I could have imagined myself voting for. 

Count that as early delusion because I am officially off his bandwagon.  As I have detailed previously, he has issues with state rights.  This latest interview just blows up how un-conservative his is compared to Ron Paul.  Mark Shea dismantles Huckabee's major gaffe in stating "all law establishes morality." 

Here's the thing: law does not establish morality. Morality is the basis of law. And morality is derived from that fact that men and women are creatures made in the image and likeness of God. It is not derived from what Caesar happens to approve or disapprove.

Mark does it well, so I won't comment on that further except to disagree with Mark that Huckabee probably didn't mean it that way.  Just take him at his word that he believes that law establishes morality.  In the political world of 2008, those in Washington DC, do legislate morality.  And it is what Huckabee is about.  Limited government?  States rights?  Must have imagined that to be a conservative concept. 

Yeah. Because once you give it in one state, then what keeps that couple from having it in New Hampshire and then moving to Arkansas and saying, "Hey, you have to accept what the other state did." That's why it is better cleared up by a marriage amendment that just says marriage is what it always has been.

Yes, Huckabee is railing against homosexual union.  But he is doing so in such a way that I can sympathize with the radical left when they fret about a theocracy.   Huckabee thinks that the federal government is in charge of handing out freedom.  And in charge of defining morality.   Did he forget we are the United States of America?

The states in the US of A are not just some antiquated boundaries better suited for tasteless jokes or sports rivalries.  The limited role of the federal government was crucial to the states agreeing to form a union.  He would be wise to read up on the War between the States considering how often he references it.

I may agree with Huckabee's morality, but I surely don't agree with his politics.

And it seems a few others disagree with his sincerity and his growing anti-Catholic problem.

Aligning the stars

Take this quiz to see which candidates are closely aligned with your views.

Hillary and John Edwards were at the bottom of my list. Not surprisingly, Ron Paul was at the top. via Leon at the CUF.

Some heady topics

Not your typical soundbite media that most candidates provide.

What do you say

Once someone gets a glimpse of Ron Paul and starts to look into his positions on the issues, some will inevitably come up with a few facts, padded by many misconceptions and conclude,
In short, Paul is extreme.

He also receives support from such organizations as the (an offshoot of another white supremacist group), the John Birch Society, and conspiracy theorists who believe 9/11 was an inside job and that the evil CFR and New World Order is out to get us, whom he also panders to on a regular basis.

Find a nice big kook bin and throw everyone in there. If anyone would actually look at the John Birch Society rather than run away scared, they would see they don't fit in that group. I haven't heard of the Council of Conservative Citizens, and the 9/11 Truthers are over the top with the conspiracy stuff.

But just because some kooks support a guy doesn't mean he panders to that type of thinking. Up here in Idaho we have some racist white supremacists. One makes lots of noise about Ron Paul. But that only serves to detract from his message of freedom. Just because a few facts intersect with some far out ideologies doesn't make those facts wrong. Same with a man campaigning on a certain agenda. Did anyone rail against Gore because the eco-terrorist group Earth First supported him?

One of my favorite answers of the recent YouTube debate was when Dr. Paul was asked directly whether he supported the "conspiracy theories". He responded with the facts. (and I am paraphrasing him here) There is a European Union where there used to be sovereign nations. There is a push to form the American Union, NAFTA and the mega-highway legislation bear that out. It isn't a "conspiracy theory", there are different ideologies. One believes in the formation of the American Union and would strip us of our sovereignty. That isn't a theory, it is fact. The Texas and Oklahoma legislature has passed laws fighting the mega-highway. Dr. Paul said he is of a different ideology that those trying to remove our sovereignty.

Ron Paul effectively removed the scare quotes from around the "theory" and presented facts. And that exposed a breed of politics that he opposes.

He isn't an isolationist, he has made that clear many times. He wants to approach countries as a free nation interested in doing business and being friends, not pushing the U.N.'s nation building policies. In the article, Mr. Dart refers to Ron Paul wanting

to withdraw from the U.N. and let Sudan work out the Darfur genocide itself.

And we are supposed to find that scary because the U.N. has done so much to stop the Darfur genocide? And the U.N. was so instrumental in saving the millions of lives in Rwanda and other African genocides?

Mr. Dart could stand to do a little homework here and not just regurgitate all the propaganda he could dig up against Dr. Paul. Listen to the man and decide, or listen to the media sound bites and scare quotes. One has an agenda, one doesn't. Figure it out or don't, I am sure one of the other clowns will offer some warm fuzzies to sooth that fear.

Ron Paul on the issues

On commenter asked what Ron Paul's Stance was on cloning. Here is Ron Paul on the issues
He did vote NO on the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, but as with many of his votes, one needs to understand a bit deeper who he is and how he votes.

I would direct you to this answer from one of the debates. He doesn't look at the government as the savior from all issues. If government didn't fund ESCR, would it even exist?

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

A: Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states should deal with it.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

Also see this article by Dr. Paul on the Pro-life cause.

Pro-lifers should be fiercely loyal to this system of federalism, because the very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts the inalienable right to life. In this way, our constitutional system closely links federalism to the fundamental moral rights to life, liberty, and property. For our Founders it was no exaggeration to say federalism is the means by which life, as well as liberty and property, are protected in this nation. This is why the recent direction of the pro-life cause is so disturbing.

Pro-life forces have worked for the passage of bills that disregard the federal system, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the federal cloning ban, and the Child Custody Protection Act. Each of these bills rested on specious constitutional grounds and undermined the federalism our Founders recognized and intended as the greatest protection of our most precious rights.

This is why I don't support the Federal Amendments for marriage and against abortion. They don't belong at the federal level. Taking it to the federal level got us in this mess (see Roe v. Wade).

On politic, Ron Paul and Huckabee

On my recent post on Huckabee, commenter Lee Strong levels the extreme liberalism comment at my post. He makes some good points that in many cases, Huckabee sounds very conservative.

I am wary of Huckabee because he talks a good game, catering to the religious voters. But how does he stand on other "small government" items. According to Thomas Woods Jr. in his
Open Letter to the Catholic Community in Behalf of Ron Paul, not so well. via CfRP

On education and home schooling, Ron Paul is the clear winner. Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter all voted for the execrable No Child Left Behind Act, and Governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have both come out in favor of it. Ron Paul – as did the Republican Party itself not so long ago – opposes any federal role in education, which is the responsibility of parents and local communities.

In other words, Ron Paul believes in a little something called subsidiarity, which happens to be a central principle of Catholic social thought. Subsidiarity holds that all social functions should be carried out by the most local unit possible, as opposed to the dehumanizing alternative whereby distant bureaucratic structures are routinely and unthinkingly entrusted with more and more responsibilities for human well-being.

And if you look at it from a Catholic perspective, Ron Paul scores a 99 on the Evaluation of 2008 Presidential Candidates Against US Bishops' Criteria. Huckabee scores a 69 while Mitt Romney had to clarify his positions to get up to a 10. Giuliani? At the bottom with negative 28.

But back to Huckabee and Ron Paul, the only two candidates I would consider. Huckabee follows rank with the current Republican agenda of "No Child Left Behind (or untaxed)". So he seems to be a panderer. Thrown out there to keep the religious voters happily involved. He has done surprisingly well, so he sticks around. But he isn't going to turn this country around. Bush had that same quiet "humility" and faith about him before he was elected.

I have said it before and will again. When you bind yourself too closely with a party, be it Republican or Democrat, you will be disappointed. And then what options are left? Sinking with the ship or leaping of into the big wide ocean, not knowing which way to swim.

Where will we hide?

The CUF folks ask "What do CUF Catholics do about Rudy?" in The Giuliani Dilemma and the Price of Purity (or Impurity!)

Do we:

A) Repeat the same arguments used against John Kerry, to the effect that it would be impossible or nearly so for a Catholic to support him in good conscience? And then if he wins the nomination, do we support Clinton, who has no pretense of being Catholic; back a third party “values” candidate; or stay home entirely? In any event, the result would be the same—a big win for Hillary. Purity—in this case at the price of whatever damage a 4–8 year Clinton interregnum would do.

Or, B) Do we support another GOP candidate and deny the nomination to Giuliani even though, according to polls, none of the others is as likely to win in November?
...

My answer is B. And I would say that Ron Paul is probably has the closest to a Catholic stance of any. Huckabee talks big, but seems to be for big government. Ron Paul is pro-life but not for the federal government being involved in a state issue.

A federal amendment is not the answer. It just gives credence that that congress should be involved in this issue that truly belongs at the state level. And then when congress decides to change their mind and make abortion rights an amendment, then we will have "cut down all the laws to get at the devil" and where will we hide when "the devil turns on us" (to quote St. Thomas More from "A man from all seasons".)

Hope for America, and hope for Ron Paul

Dave Kopel on National Review Online gives some glowing praise to Ron Paul and gives him a chance in the primaries.Could Dr. Paul really surprise us all? via Catholics for Ron Paul

The Republican Revolution of 1994 promised substantial shrinkage of a bloated federal government. The Republicans who were swept into Congress in 1946 had promised the same thing, and they delivered a great deal. The 1994 Republicans delivered much less, were out-maneuvered by President Clinton, and eventually became part of the problem.

But deep down there’s still a hunger among much of the Republican base for someone who will shrink the Leviathan, rather than merely attempt to use it for conservative ends.

Like the Ronald Reagan message (and unlike the Pat Buchanan message), the Ron Paul message is fundamentally positive. There may be some anger about the depredations of huge and aggressive government, but the campaign’s theme is “Hope for America” and its premise is that the American people are good people who can achieve the best for themselves, their families, their community, and their nation when the federal government gets out of the way and stops behaving like a helicopter mother.[emphasis mine]

That is the kicker right there. The Republican politicians see their support as freedom to spend on their pet projects. But the conservatives are looking for someone to stop the spending. It isn't about "getting mine", but about freedom and keeping the government in check.

The media loves to play the Republican versus Democrat, right versus left.... That angle excites the passions and makes for good copy, and good copy makes for good business in the media world. But the Republicans better recognize the media doesn't portray the base the way the base sees issues. Sound bites aren't as effective in the bits and bytes world. We don't have to rely on Jennings or Couric or the anchor of the month, nor is the information limited to the 5 seconds of edited jargon.

Real opinions on real issues may cause some discomfort to the politician, but perhaps that is why Dr. Paul is doing so well when no one gave him a chance.