Hate McCain? Write-in Ron Paul!

After careful consideration and deep thought, it occurred to me, why not give into the Ron Paul Mafia and submit to the inevitability? If McCain is going to be the Republican nominee, what other choice do conservatives have?

There’s a movement growing to Write-in Ron Paul, which seems to be the plan for the Paulbots if/when their candidate drops out.

Seriously, what are the downfalls of Paul beside his Obama-like stance on foreign policy? He is for constitutional government, wants to do away with pointless government bureaucracy, and believes wholly in personal liberty and individual responsibility. Can McCain, Obama, or Clinton say the same? Not a chance! They are the big government candidates!

Furthermore, he’s positively opposed to socialized medicine, an opinion I can personally hold near and dear to my heart. Plus, as a doctor, he’s got some credibility in the field of health care. More government equals more problems in this area, not less.

He wants to physically control the borders before undertaking more legislation on immigration, that’s a mainstream conservative position, not held until recently by John McCain. Also, he’s opposed to any forms of amnesty, another position which is not yet held by McCain.

The list goes on and on of mainstream conservative positions espoused by Ron Paul. Yet, because of his views on the war in Iraq, he has been relegated within the GOP as the “crazy” candidate.

Well, perhaps I haven’t actually moved that far into insanity so let’s get back on track. However, it comes to the point where you look at the current crop of candidates and realize that, for voters like myself, where do we cast a vote? If it wasn’t for Paul’s stances on foreign policy and the fact that he seems to espouse weak views on the war on terror, he’s not a bad conservative candidate.

In fact, his conservative positions put John McCain to shame in terms of being strongly rooted in the constitution.

Can somebody again remind me why we as conservatives do not like Ron Paul? Oh boy, I feel a fever coming on.

  • Michael

    Conservative Gal– this goes along with my earlier comments. Ron Paul is pushing the traditional conservative line here. There are two things I want to toss back- one of which I am completely unsure about.

    1) Nate cited a video a month or so back in which a journalist for The Nation talked about a Ron Paul Newsletter and how it contained numerous racial slurs and anti-gay and Jewish retorts by Ron Paul. I have since not heard anything in response to this. If you have not as well, this could be a good reason why not to back him.

    2) Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul were the top two candidates talking about “Constitution” during the debates. There was one other candidate, however, that is deeply qualified in this regard– Barack Obama taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago. So that does deserve some recognition as well.

  • Jen

    First, let me share the facts — you want to vote for CFR candidate, be my guest:

    **Democrat CFR member Candidates:**
    Barack Obama: Also, his wife Michelle Obama is on the Board of Directors in the Chicago branch of the CFR.
    Hillary Clinton
    John Edwards
    Chris Dodd
    Bill Richardson

    **Republican CFR member Candidates:**
    Mitt Romney
    Rudy Giuliani
    John McCain
    Fred Thompson
    Newt Gingrich
    Mike Huckabee: Huckabee is not a CFR member, though he named Richard Haas, president of the CFR, as his adviser on foreign policy. On Feb. 21, 2006, Hass wrote a column for the Taipei (China) Times titled, “State Sovereignty Must Be Altered in Globalized Era.” This is an explicit solicitation for global government. Here is the article http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/02/21/2003294021

    So what is the “CFR” anyway?

    The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is David Rockefeller’s private thinktank. This group has nothing to do with our government since it is entirely private. This group is pro-war and pro-North American Union (loss of American sovereignty and loss of Constitutional protections). You can read more about this group at —

    Here’s a short video of a discussion between Dick Cheney (ex-director of CFR) and David Rockefeller, which reveals their close-knit ties —

    The Money Masters (documentary, part 1)

    The Money Masters (documentary, part 2)

    Reviews of “The Money Masters” documentary from financial experts

    America: Freedom to Fascism (documentary)

    About the director of “America: Freedom to Fascism,” Aaron Russo

    Spin (documentary)
    Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality

    About the creator of “Spin,” Brian Springer

    “Corporate Media Censorship (part 1)” by Daniel Estulin

    “Corporate Media Censorship (part 2)” by Daniel Estulin


    “The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for “the purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government.” Harpers, July l958

    “This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
    -David Rockefeller speaking at the UN, Sept. 14, 1994

    “We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” — David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

    1973, August 10: The New York Times publishes “From a China Traveller” by David Rockefeller, who writes about Communist China: “One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony….There is a very real and pervasive dedication to chairman Mao and Maoist principles. Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community purpose. General social and economic progress is no less impressive….The enormous social advances of China have benefited greatly from the singleness of ideology and purpose….The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in history.”

    1974 – Richard N. Gardner writing in Foreign Affairs (CFR’s publication) April 1974 Article entitled The Hard Road to World Order, “In short, the “house of world order: will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great “booming, buzzing confusion,” …….but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

    “We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (CFR publication) (July/August 1995)

    “Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.” Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

  • @Michael:
    1. Paul did not write those, it was written by ghostwriters using his name. This very same issue has come up and been refuted about 100 times during this election, and numerous times during his congressional elections, yet the people of his district keep re-electing him, because they know the truth. Racism goes against everything Ron Paul is about. What he particularly doesn’t like about it is that it is a concept that groups people together, rather than looking at the individuals. So, since you had not heard anything in response, it’s obvious that’s because you didn’t bother looking.

    2. Ron Paul’s voting record clearly shows that he votes by the Constitution every time – and he’s got a much, much longer voting record to cite than Barack Obama does.

  • Jay Em

    What about Huckabee? He still has a slight chance.
    Is pro constitution and has very conservative views.
    Why are people afraid of Huckabee?

  • Michael wrote: “it contained numerous racial slurs and anti-gay and Jewish retorts by Ron Paul”

    That is a lie. Ron Paul did not write those comments, they were ghost-written in his name while he was busy doing other things. This has been debunked ad nauseum, but keeps being brought up because it’s the only dirt Ron Paul’s opponents can find. Don’t believe me? Fine. I challenge you find find an example of Ron Paul saying, doing, or writing ANYTHING racist, that can actually be proven to be by Ron Paul.

    Jay Em wrote: “What about Huckabee? He still has a slight chance.
    Is pro constitution and has very conservative views.
    Why are people afraid of Huckabee?”

    Huckabee is pro-life and has a great record on the 2d Amendment, second only to Ron Paul. However, that’s where the conservative goodness ends. Huckabee’s record shows him to be basically a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat. He taxes and spends with the best of them, and he’s a creepy theocrat who would cram his Christianity down everybody’s throat. Check out his record as Governor of Arkansas.

  • Ketan

    People don’t want Schmuckabee because he wants the constitution to conform to the Bible.
    These remarks are the likes of a mentally deluded person.
    Right now he’s a republican mascot. He should remain so.

  • Matthew

    Conservative Gal- in the article you state that Dr. Paul is weak on the war on terror. yet he voted to go into afghanistan to find osama, and he also voted for alot of anti terror legislature.. as long as it was within the bounds of the constitution and also on the topic of the Iraq war, if i am understanding his position correctly (and i hope i am if not plz correct me) but the reason he was and is against the Iraq war is that it was an undeclared war (aka unconstitutional) and because of this fact he extrapolated from previous wars with similar qualities (vietnam, somali, etc) that it would lead to a lot of American casualties and cost a lot of money.

    well thats my two cents… but anyways I am already planning on voting for Dr. Paul for President no matter what.

  • I am afraid that many states will not count write-ins unless the candidate has filed –before a deadline– their intention to run as a write-in. Other state’s have fusion laws that prohibit a person from running in a party’s race, such as the GOP, and then continuing to run through a different mechanism after losing.

    If your state permits such write-ins and reports “Mickey Mouse” “Donald Duck” then you live in a very open state. Also, it has been my observation that many states don’t bother to count many or all of the write-in ballots at all unless there are some special circumstances where the major parties want them counted.

    Lastly, I have to laugh. Did you think Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, et. al ever stood a chance of getting elected? I was told well over a year ago it would be Hillary facing McCain. I didn’t believe it. McCain because the people behind Hillary were looking for an even bigger Nazi than her. How ironic that Hillary is the one in trouble, and the biggest warmonger of all and one loony motherFer to boot is a shoo-in. Bottom line…just like EVERY election you are given the choice of voting for the evil of two lessers. The candidates are hand picked that way. The election is dialed in that way. Your only requirement is to show up freely under your own will and vote, validating their rigged process. Your masters leave it up to you to vote your conscience. They don’t care for whom you vote. They “count” the votes in secret and inform you of the results. Either way their candidates win.

    The only way you can win is not to play. Stay home election day. Or better yet, organize an election day “I Didn’t Vote” picnic and shoot out at the range. Always makes me feel better…more productive too.

  • Matthew

    @Fascist Nation- Im sure I speak for a lot of people in saying that everyone should vote especially in a presidential election, and it should never be for the lesser of 2 evils…

    If we as Americans dont exercise our civil rights (voting etc) then what do we have that the government wont be able to take from us. It is in voting that we help try and stem the problem that you state of how it seems as though the candidates are chosen for us.

    So, everyone please go out and vote even if it is for mickey mouse or donald duck.

  • Right on Conservative Gal!

    BTW, I agree with most of what you say, but I don’t see Paul’s foreign policy as a liability but rather an asset. As he explained in the debates, our foreign policy is creating many more enemies and terrorists than it eliminates. Also, Ron Paul alone advocates a foreign policy of non-interventionism. Barack Obama may pretend to be anti-war, but he would actually expand the war in the middle east. Only Ron Paul advocates bringing our troops home from around the globe and ending the American Empire before it ends us. We simply cannot afford to run an empire, it is morally wrong, it is bankrupting us, and eventually there will be massive blowback, of that there can be no doubt.

    It is important to understand that Barack Obama works for the globalist cabal the Council on Foreign Relations, just like McCain and Clinton. Make no mistake, McCain is being set up to lose this election. If the GOP wanted to win, they would not have ridiculed, marginalized and ignored the best candidate this country has ever had for the office of POTUS – Ron Paul. I hope and pray that if we reach the point where the Republican nomination is no longer even a remote possibility, Ron Paul will be drafted by his supporters to run a 3rd party or independent candidacy. If this does not happen, we are already planning to organize a massive “write-in Ron Paul” campaign. He is the only one who deserves our support.

    Please watch this short video. It explains who the “liberals” and “conservatives” really are – “neo-cons”…they pose as liberals and conservatives to deceive the voters. They all work for the CFR. Except Ron Paul. Tomorrow (Presidents Day) is a money bomb for Ron Paul. Please support the only honest person running for President. This is likely our last chance to stop the forces of evil. Ron Paul is the only one who has a chance to stop them, and he needs our help.
    [link edited for length]

    This country and the world desperately need Ron Paul to be the next POTUS. There is much more at stake here than loyalty to a corrupt party that has completely abandoned its own principles. The future of our country, and perhaps of humanity itself, is at stake in this presidential election. We may not have another chance to stop the forces of evil, as they are accelerating their agenda for the destruction of America. They are poised to destroy our national sovereignty with the North American Union, which will lead us into the fascist global dictatorship they call the New World Order. They have already reduced our beloved Constitution to “just a goddamned piece of paper” under the reckless reign of the Bush regime. It is time to stop the insanity and support Ron Paul for president. Ask yourself these questions: If not us, who? If not now, when?

    Ron Paul has called upon us to march on Washington DC. This is perhaps the most important thing any of us will ever do. It is time to stand up and be counted and be part of history. We will be judged by our actions in this critical time. We have an incredibly brave and strong leader in Dr. Ron Paul. He alone has the will and the ability to right this sinking ship of state. Please support his candidacy and march for peace, prosperity and freedom in DC this summer, date TBA. I would not miss it for the world. Let’s roll!

  • Sorry, the video link did not come through. Here it is:

  • NH

    Hey NOW you’re thinking! I am going to write in Ron Paul.
    There is no way I am going to vote for McCain who is controlled by George Soros.

  • NH

    If anyone is a racist it’s Obama. He belongs to a black separatist church which only ascribes to black values and Africa. They revere Louis Farrakhan. The pastor is anti-white. If he is elected, white people will become second class citizens. Are you for that?
    Also Obama is a world socialist controlled by the CFR and Zbigniew Brezhinski. He will go to war in Darfur, Pakistan, or any other place they tell him to.
    This article below proves that he’s merely a tool for the world government and promoter of a tax to be paid to the UN to fuel its totalitarian control over us and to redistribute the wealth to other countries.  
    “A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.”
    “The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).”
    “In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
    An Obama presidency would be racist and a disaster for the USA.
    In one of Obama’s campaign offices, there is even a flag with a picture of a murderous Marxist dictator on it!
    Read the rest here: 
    “MANAGUA, Nicaragua: President Daniel Ortega, who led the 1979 revolution in Nicaragua, says Barack Obama’s presidential bid is a “revolutionary” phenomenon in the United States.”
    Yeah, the Marxist Revolution.
    Judge the man by the company he keeps. He’s a dangerous empty suit.

  • Michael, the argument that Barack Obama holds credibility with the constitution because he was a constitutional law professor doesn’t hold water with me. You would think that a man who taught constitutional law would realize that nowhere in the constitution does it state that abortion is a legal right derived from the constitution. It could be put in the category of a states’ rights issue and leave it up to the states to decide on abortion laws. I’m sure if we delved into his other views, we’d find similar things which do not square with constitutional principles. Any good law professor would espouse to their students that there are no amendments or sections in the constitution which back the verdict in Roe v. Wade.

    After sitting in many law classes myself, I know of a professor who teaches constitutional law at Syracuse University and stretches the First Amendment so far that he plasters pornographic pictures on the walls of the lecture hall, and we’re not talking simply a lack of clothing. His claim was that it’s his first amendment right to do so.

    Also, to the videos, were the ghost writers? I have no clue, one does not know. However, if we were to delve into McCain’s past one could take issue his abrupt divorce from the first wife, his pro-global warming stance, his wanting to switch parties in 2001, and his hand-holding photo-ops with Ted Kennedy.

    I thank everyone else for all the informative videos and links on Ron Paul. Now let’s try to convince the “Angry American” of Ron Paul’s splendor.

  • Teri

    HUCKABEE is the most sensible candidate on the ballot. He has a fair immigration plan, a FAIRER trade plan, and a GREAT TAX PLAN! He also believes in a strong military and a foreign policy that will keep America safe. His comment about the constitution reflected his belief that this country should have moral values. He was trying to make a point, NOT that he was going to “CHANGE” the constitution. VOTE FOR HUCKABEE IN YOUR PRIMARY IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY, LETS GO TO THE CONVENTION!!

  • Ocalalily

    I like Ron Paul, and I believe he is an honorable man. I can NOT vote for Ron Paul though, on the basis of his foreign policy stance. I don’t agree with his opinion that if we just “bring everyone home and leave the rest of the world to sort out its probelms” we will be left alone. This take on foreign policy is scary to me. Just because you walk away from a bully doesn’t mean he won’t chase you into your own backyard. I believe walking away from the problems overseas will just mean that the violence will end up here on OUR shores. Sorry, that is unacceptable to me. There has to be more diplomacy, not necessarily retreat.

  • steven montross

    If bases overseas are important for national security, why didn’t they help us on 9/11 ? We have bases in Saudi Arabia do we not? The attackers were mostly Saudi were they not? Your reasoning (or lack thereof) dictates this should have given us some sort of advantage. Did these bases in Germany help? Korea? Here’s a national security concern. What if the oil producers start demanding oil payments in Euros? What if the Communist Chinese dump their TRILLION in U.S. bonds on the market. WAKE UP-nobody needs to attack this country to make your life miserable. Your politicians are selling this country in a futile attempt to prop up a grossly inflated dollar. Try asking your favorite republicrat these questions and see if you can even GET an answer.

  • Ocalalily

    I believe the tragedy of 9-11 could have been thwarted had the previous administration (under Clinton) had not dismissed the warning signs of the attacks (and there were many of them, even years before during the Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations). 9-11 was caused by those administration’s mis-guided confidence that no one would dare attack us, and our inept INS forces that did nothing to halt the rising tide of illegal aliens being in our country with expired visas etc.
    As to the other things that you mentioned…you are correct. We are vulnerable, but I still don’t think that we should be unarmed overseas.

  • Michael

    RE: Ron Paul’s alleged problems

    I am not sold that Ron Paul is either guilty or innocent on the charges of racism, homophobia, and antisemitism. The video Nathan posted had a journalist explaining that there were editions from the Ron Paul Newsletter (numerous) in which Ron Paul himself asserted writing, that contained very inflammatory language about African Americans, homosexuals, and Jews.

    Here is one blog, published in The New York Sun, that contains some details it as well. I am very open to reviewing other information that disputes these charges, but they are quite substantial, and I would not see any direct Ron Paul website refutation as impartial enough to clear my misgivings.


    CG: The University of Chicago is a very well respected college. You are right to say that just because someone teaches does not make them correct. However, it does show that they posses an incredible amount of knowledge and experience on a subject– particularly when it comes to law. Issues of abortion and capital punishment are disputed by legal experts as high up as our Supreme Court Judges, so I do not think Obama’s views on abortion suddenly disqualifies him as a learned scholar in Constitutional Law. The way you are arguing, it sounds as if one is only an expert if they agreed with your stance…

  • bpigott


    Drop the Ron Paul racist, homophobic, anti-semite rhetoric. I am not a Ron Paul supporter but a lot of socially liberal voters are and they would not stand for this if it were true. You are digging for something that just isn’t there. Move on.

  • Kevin

    Conservative gal’s ignorance is showing which seems to inflict so many in this country. Ron Paul has advocated his common sense approach to foreign policy probably longer than Obama has been alive. So much for your Obama like stance.

  • Stalin


    Would you say that it is common sense to cut and run from Iraq resulting in civil war and mass genocide?

  • Kathaleen Ray

    I hate McCain……… BUT……. Ron Paul isn’t much better.

  • Nathan

    WOW! I HATE MCCAIN too and Ron Paul IS MUCH BETTER!!! Whether you like him or not doesn’t matter. The guy preaches the constitution. Less government and more FREEDOM which is what this country was founded on. How about abolishing the Patriot Act, which if you know your history is fairly similar to Hitlar’s Enabling Act…. Ben Franklin said ‘ he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither’…… That is why Ron Paul means so much… lets get back to the foundation that this country was built upon, a small government and a free nation…… Although, i am a realist and this country has already fallen, Ron Paul can’t win Presidency because America(what it was really designed to be), is gone. Now there is only a hope, that one day this country could be saved…. But i fear it is too late

  • Stalin

    I agree with Ron Paul on many things, especially smaller government and his America first attitude. However, his stance on Iraq is just impossible for me to support. An immediate withdrawl from Iraq would mean civil war and genocide and would dishonor all those that have fought and given their lives in the name of freedom.

  • Nathan

    They didn’t die in the name of freedom. They died in vain for a war started on false pretence. I am in the military and it is too bad that everyone can’t wake up and realize this isn’t our fight, lets fight the battles that rage within our own borders.

  • Stalin

    Regardless of what you think of the war or if it was started on false pretensed, you still have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and American soldiers to end the war in a way that will result in the least amount of casualties. An immediate withdrawl would be a disaster.

  • Nathan

    the least amount of casualties??? the least amount would have been us never going there and the least amount now would be us leaving asap…. they arn’t going to fly everyone out tomorrow it isn’t a one day thing… It is an exit strategy… and it is about ending American CASUALTIES

  • Stalin

    You are assuming that in the last 5 years, Saddam wouldn’t have built a weapon of mass destruction and used it on Americans or our allies….or that he wouldn’t continue to carry out mass genocide in his own country. Putting a timeline for withdrawl from Iraq is suicide. It’s like a boxer telling his opponent when he is going to let his guard down. Doesn’t make much sense does it?

  • Nathan

    iraq isn’t our enemy, and neither are the iraqi people… It is the taliban and such organizations…we have never been at war with them and the idea wasn’t for the boxer to beat his opponent…. it was for the boxer to teach the doberman how to fight for themselves… Perhaps you should spend more time findout out why we went there before you spend all your time having uninformed opinions… Opinions without knowledge has a name… ignorance…

  • Stalin


    1) I never said that the Iraqi people are our enemy. You need to actually read the comments I make. I said that we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to end the war in a way that will result in the least amount of casualties. I don’t see how that translates to them being our enemy.

    2) To your dog reference: What the hell do you think we’ve being doing for the last 5 years. I was saying in fairly simple terms that you don’t let your enemy (Muslim extremists) know when you are going wave the white flag of surrender that you so covet.

    3) Don’t call me ignorant. That is a typical liberal cop out.

  • Nathan

    Read the comments you have made?? ok… While i do agree that Saddam Hussein is a poor excuse for a life, did they find any evidence of any w.m.d. No they did not… It is my opinion that one of the biggest problems “non americans” have with us is that we stick our neck into other people’s business. They have a right to live as they wish in that country and unitl there is a public outcry for help it is non of our business… We act like the world is our domain, like everyone has to be like us… And while i do wish that everyone was that lucky, they have a right to be the country they want to be… Did it ever occur to you that America has an incredible amount of W.M.D. and we are arrogant enough to say nobody else can have them. I love this country, and i fight for this country, but i love the constitution, i love the men and women that work in this country. But some of the things we do and some of the policies we have contradict everything this country was built on. Conservatism has changed… this country has changed…. it is too bad that “some” people want to FORCE everyone else to change. ….. And yes i am sorry for the iraqi people that might get injured or killed if we left. But don’t forget. We are not fighting a war they started and helping them… we are fighting a war we started, and we are fighting it in their country, and their casualties… INNOCENT casualties should maek you want to leave if it is the Iraqis people you care so much for…. I am all for finishing what you started…. so long as what you started was right and just…. Since it wasn’t… lets get a president in there who will bring our troops home and likely save american and iraqis lives….. sorry stalin but that is the real story

  • Stalin


    I completely understand what you are saying. Ideally we would have never gone to war. Ideally we wouldn’t have to interfere with the affairs of other countries. I wish to God we could take all the money we have had to spend policing this world and spend it within the United States. I wish to God we could have all the lives back that have died fighting for this country. However, are you willing to take the chance that everybody is just going to behave themselves? In the nuclear age, we do not have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, there are evil people in the world, people who want you and I dead. We can’t just sit back, put our heads in the sand, and hope it will all be OK. Unfortunately, in the world we live in, tough decisions HAVE to be made. No, we didn’t find WMD’s in Iraq….yet. Are you willing to take the chance that he wouldn’t have developed them? What about the fact that he commited genocide? What about Iran? Should we sit back and watch Ahmadenjad lob nuclear weapons at Israel? Do you think that Al Queda will suddenly turn into the Boy Scouts? Yes, yes I know the argument… there wouldn’t be Al Queda in Iraq if we weren’t there. I for one would rather fight them there than in the US. The war in Iraq has become a broader war against terrorism in general. Sure we can have a president that can bring home our troops in 60 days and that president may be hailed in the short term for saving American lives. However, the long term impact will be a much larger loss of American lives if we don’t do the right thing by sticking it out.

  • Babs

    Bravo, Stalin. Bush was hailed as well for his quick military “shock and awe” in the beginning, now we crucify him in the press and say we never should have started it. But since it’s started – and we DIDN’T start it, Al Queda did – America MUST finish it. Otherwise, every life lost up until this day will have been a waste, and every life that will be lost in more terrorist attacks on our own soil will go down in history as an oh well, they can do whatever they want to us, we shouldn’t respond. Sitting on the sidelines is not what our forefathers did, and it simply can’t be what we do. If we do, we’ll lose everything they fought for us to have. I don’t think America’s through talking to the terrorists – in their own choice of language – we simply must have the last word on this. Our freedom and very lives depend on it. Obama says “Yes, we can”, but then promises “no, he won’t”. We must win the war on Terrorism, and we won’t do that by tucking our tails and running home. That’s the easy solution – give me a President that will fight for me.




  • JG

    Granny News
    Taking back our Freedoms “RALLY”

    Friends: NOW is the time for us to unite and come together, whether our primary cause is peace, labor, truth, human rights, American sovereignty, impeachment, environmental, voting rights, civil liberties, the Constitution or sound fiscal policy….or all of the aforementioned.

    We are manipulated and overpowered only when we allow those in power to segment and divide us. In fact, we have much more in common than we may think. After all, we are concerned citizens and people of principle. Strength comes via numbers and the forging of sound strategic alliances by, and between, activist groups.

    We will be updating you with additional information. And no, we are not just asking you to participate and to help spread the word. We are asking you to consider that WE must unite and WE must demonstrate the power of the people….we need representation and participation from every “cause” and “belief set” in order to send a loud and clear message that WE ARE RECLAIMING OUR POWER as Americans.

    It is time to send a message to those in authority: WE may have different priorities, we may be of every persuasion, but we are all Americans and we are sick and tired of unrepresentative government. We are tired of watching the fundamental promise and potential of American life subverted by profiteers and self-serving interests. And we are sick and tired of the few pretenders, and their supplicants, who posture that their agendas are ours.

    UNITED we will stand…and so will the America we love.



    Join us in Washington:

    APRIL 15th,2008

    11 AM on the west lawn of the Capitol

    Dave Von Kleist

    of “The Power Hour” Radio show will be our Master of Ceremony and will be performing his music throughout the day.

    Guest Speakers:

    Ron & Carol Paul

    A artists rendering of Ron and Carol in patriotic dress will be presented to them in honor of their 51st Anniversary.

    ( photo of picture can be seen here)

    Penny Langford Freeman

    Former District Political Director for Ron Paul

    Russell Means ( Lakotah Elder )

    James H. Fetzer

    John Paul Mitchell, Author “No More Taxes”

    Jack Mclamb, Police Officer (retired), Constitutional Patriot

    Bill Stegmeier

    Murray Sabrin, NJ — David Robert Grate, NY — John Wallace, NY — Greg Lewis, Fla — Dean Santoro, Fla —

    Ted Terbolizard, CA — B J Lawson, NC

    Performing Artists:

    International # 1 Hit Artist “Will To Power”

    WNC’s own “Empty Slate”


    ( no introduction is necessary for these guys)

    Wanda Case,

    Soprano Vocalist performing “heart/soul rendering” presentations of Our “National Anthem” and “God “Save” America”

    Everything is all set: We have the sound systems, staging, porta potties and the permit has been redone so we can start setting up the stages at 7 AM to be prepared for a 11 AM start off.

    See you all there on the 15th with your signs and energy lets get this


    We have the permits in hand,

    This is our chance to show Congress and the Senate there are eyes on them and they can be voted out if they do not start doing their jobs.

    The participants can carry hand signs, dress in costumes and in general have a peaceful demonstration. No dangerous objects will be allowed ( Homeland security rules) as sticks with pointed ends, metal poles for signs etc. Bull horns are permitted from the steps for amplification for speakers.



  • Great site! For more info, check out


  • Conservative Gal,

    You make some good points: I am probably the most conservative person you will ever meet -unless you’re able to meet up with Jesus. That claim can be verified by either doing a web search on my name (I’m Gordon Wayne Watts, in Lakeland, Florida) -or by visiting either of my two official websites:

    * http://www.GordonWayneWatts.com

    * http://www.GordonWatts.com

    (Surprising Trivia about me: I nearly won the Terri Schiavo case in court for the Christian Conservative Pro-Life side “all by myself,” with ONLY JESUS in my corner -no help from a lawyer -and I’M not a lawyer.)

    OK, now that I’ve established my true conservative credentials, I will say this:

    Concerning IRAQ (the only possibly point of disagreement with you), I **DO** agree that:

    * Weapons on Mass Destruction were found (a few labs that could have been used for biological terror) -even if not as many WMD as what we initially believed.

    * SADDAM HUSSEIN, himself, was a WMD, so our presence there in IRAQ was necessary, in my view.

    * There were MANY mass graves found, indicating that Saddam Hussein’s **WHOLE REGEIN** was a collective “WMD.”

    * We had the sanction of the liberal United Nations -even *they* saw the light here.

    My point?

    Whilst it was good for us to invade IRAQ, presently we are experiencing the phenomenon called “Marginal Utility,” whereby the “Law of Diminishing Returns” governs our present payback in IRAQ.

    PLAIN ENGLISH Translation: We accomplished a lot in Iraq in the past, but currently, while we are accomplishing some there, the overall co$t to our economy (and in lives of Americans lost) is probably greater than the benefits obtained.

    Therefore, as Mr. Spock would say, it is only logical to retreat and heal up for another day.

    PLUS, our core-conservative valuse of PERSONAL RESPONSABILITY and “Moral Rights and Wrongs” also demand we follow plain and true logic.

    PS: You’re probably wondering how I found your post here -well, here’s how:

    I wanted to know if my planned “write-in” vote for Dr. Ron Paul would count, given the state and federal laws governing write-in candidates. (By extension, I wondered if other states would somehow restrict or not count his write-in candidacy if, for example, he did not fill out certain paperwork regarding declaring himself as a “write-in” candidate.)

    Thus, I went to:

    * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22write+in%22+%22ron+paul%22

    The link to your post was lucky #7 of about 102,000 Google.com results for “write in” “ron paul,” and was found in as rapid (0.10 seconds).

    ** Joke – what do you get when you cross GW BUSH with JC WATTS… me -I’m GW WATTS, and as conservative (or more) than both -and in between on skin colour too (I’m part Native American).

    That is my view -do you disagree?


  • I’m an American living in Durban and the whole world is watching this one.

    It might be far-fetched, but there are really only two people running for the two highest US offices, Barak Obama, who has answers and Ron Paul who has both answers and the communication skills.

    I suggest that we look for a way to form an interim government of National Unity led by Obama and Paul, for that is what we need and there is precedent all over this watching world.

    A write-is fine, but there are a lot of vote fraudsters.

    Every time I imagine Bush with burnt-cork blacking, he looks more and more like ‘Mad Bob’ Mugabe.

    Neither will let go of power

    Tom Dennen

  • chrissy

    true conservatives, if they actually did some independent research about ron paul, WOULD SUPPORT HIM.

    the problem is the lies and misinformation campaigns targeted against dr. paul mostly by corporate sponsored government flacks, or government sponsored corporate flacks. they are truly one and the same.

    we have to do our own digging. we cannot rely on mainstream media to tell us the truth, people!

  • Christo930

    Why make such a big deal about abortion? How about real issues like the federal reserve and the fractional reserve banking system. People getting huffy and puffy about things like abortion are being sidetracked by the system. They don’t affect you, but real issues like the above do. Then there is the loss of personal freedoms that is nobody is talking about like Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus, one of which is specifically granted in the body of the Constitution itself. While we argue about when a fetus becomes a person, DEFINITE persons are being killed by the thousands in Iraq. I am a conservative, but I refuse to be sidetracked by things like abortion while our rights are being trampled upon. I have nobody to vote for and with computerized voting machines, I have no REAL vote anyway and all this takes place while citizens debate on subjects the government has no place being in the first place. And in the end, the whole thing is silly because how can you support individual liberty AND support the government telling you what you can and can not do with your own body. We have a “war on drugs” that is a total failure (drug use has gone up since the war started) and has led to record numbers of incarcerated people in a supposedly free country. Over 2 million (and growing) are in our prisons and more than half are there for drugs. We are building prisons faster than schools and hospitals. The federal government has grown under every GOP president for decades. Not once has the government got smaller and only under 1 president has there been a balanced budget and that was a democrat! We are invading and bombing countries to support freedom and democracy! We would be so much better off under a Paul administration and yet he was basically laughed off the ballot. We have become “we the sheeple”. So keep arguing about abortion and other things we have no business being involved in while our freedom dissolves around us and one day we will wake up and it will be too late. police are already asking for “papers please” (Stop and frisk)in major cities, all for our protection and freedom.

  • I previously implied the we should do as “Conservative Gal” asks in her title -and “write-in” Ron Paul’s name.

    HOWEVER, I now suggest this is a bad idea.

    Yes, he is (in my opinion) the most qualified candidate of those who ran, but, I am the reporter who interviewed Jesse, his campaign manager, and I have confirmed what I suspected all along: Dr. Paul is not eligible for a vote in all 50 states -because some states prohibit a primary loser {Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) lost the Republican primary to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)} from being allowed to receive a write-in vote.

    I should know: I, myself, am running for Congress down here in Florida, and in order for me to be eligible to receive a vote from a voter in my district, I had to be eligible and fill out certain paperwork with the Fla Dept of State, Division of Elections.

    Front-page coverage on my paper regarding both Ron Paul’s eligibility and my own run for congress can be found on my paper’s official website:

    The Register (AOL mirror) / The Register (Geo mirror)

    or my personal website:

    http://www.GordonWayneWatts.com / http://www.GordonWatts.com

    I suggest four other 3rd-party candidate -all of whom ARE eligible to receive votes. Presently, it is believed Dr. Paul may shortly endorse Chuck Baldwin, the only true conservative whose party is also truly conservative. Bob Barr is conservative, but his party is not totally conservative in its platform.

    Additionally, Chris (aka “Christo930”), the last poster, has emailed me, and I am taking the liberty to append my reply to him -since I am sure many of you may also share his concerns:

    In a message dated 8/3/2008 12:25:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, “Chris” {I’m suppressing and hiding his email address here} writes:

    {Chris says} I am writing to you because I saw your post on youdecide2008.com.

    ** And I am replying in blue font here…

    {Note: you, the reader, can’t see the blue, and I don’t know if this form supports the colour attribute, but you can tell my reply as it is offset by asterisks and this header: {Gordon replies} ** –Gordon}

    {Chris says} It was a response to a person named conservativegal or something like that.

    {Gordon replies} ** Yes, now I recall, and I had to go look it up in a google search to find it:

    {Gordon replies} ** http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ayoudecide2008.com+gordon+watts -I would have appreciated you providing me the direct link for my reference, but anyhow…

    {Chris says} You stated you have deep religious beliefs, particularly in Jesus. I am quite sure that Jesus would not condone the US invading a foreign nation,

    {Gordon replies} ** Now, hold on a second, Chris: You see MANY instances in the Old Testament in which God asks one country to invade another (He even has used heathen nations to punish Israel, His ‘chosen’ nation, because, as we all know, God does *not* play favorites.)

    {Gordon replies} ** Furthermore, we know that God’s actions were logical: The needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few (soldiers who were lost) -or the one (in the case of a solo mission).

    {Chris says} stealing their oil, killing their civillions (including children and women), torturing the Prisoners of war and the other terrible things going on in Iraq, not the least of which is poisoning them with depleted Uranium (and, coincidentally, our own soldiers.).

    {Gordon replies} ** These things, if true, are *indeed* not supported by God, but in ANY venture (be it one of peace or one of war -sometimes BOTH necessary), you deal with humans -who are known to err, sin, and miss the mark.

    {Chris says} I posted the following as a reply to the thread:

    {Gordon replies} ** And, indeed, your reply below was word-for-word the same as the one you posted in forum on that thread.

    {Chris says} Why make such a big deal about abortion?

    {Gordon replies} ** ANSWER: Thou shalt not kill -ever hear of Luke 1:41 and Luke 1:44, in which the Holy Scriptures say that Elisabeth was pregnant with a “babe”?? –Yes, a baby, not a “blob of tissue,” thank you. You can see the problems with your logic now, I trust.

    {Gordon replies} ** Furthermore, if you don’t see it now, consider this: To protect one identical twin who just so happens to live OUTSIDE the womb (newly born), while NOT protecting the other who is still inside the womb (he/she is the 2nd born, and is about to be born) violates Equal Protection -by the definition -and, is inherently unfair.

    {Chris says} How about real issues like the federal reserve and the fractional reserve banking system. People getting huffy and puffy about things like abortion are being sidetracked by the system.

    {Gordon replies} ** Both are valid issues -the validity of one does not negate the validity of the other, but I see your point: It is not good to get sidetracked.

    {Chris says} They don’t affect you, but real issues like the above do.

    {Gordon replies} ** Wrong: When ONE is deprived of freedom, ALL suffer. THAT is precisely why we outlaw rape, murder, slavery, etc. Same for murder of the unborn aka abortion.

    {Chris says} Then there is the loss of personal freedoms that is nobody is talking about like Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus, one of which is specifically granted in the body of the Constitution itself. While we argue about when a fetus becomes a person, DEFINITE persons are being killed by the thousands in Iraq.

    {Gordon replies} ** Killing *is* justified if in self-defense or the defense of another. Since Saddam Hussein was killing citizens, the latter exception to killing applies: We were morally and legally justified in removing him -but, once having done so, I believe we should have left.

    {Chris says} I am a conservative, but I refuse to be sidetracked by things like abortion while our rights are being trampled upon. I have nobody to vote for and

    {Gordon replies} ** Now, hold on just a sec, Chris: While I agree that a “write-in” for Ron Paul would be wasted because he is NOT eligible to receive write-in votes in something like eleven states (my paper got the exclusive scoop from Jesse, his campaign manager who informed us of this), you CAN (and probably SHOULD) vote for Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party (both the party platform and the candidates are conservative). a good “second choice” could be Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root of the Libertarian Party, since the candidates (at least Barr) are conservative -but the party is not totally conservative in my view.

    {Gordon replies} ** See any of my pages -personal or professional -for front-page news on that matter.

    {Chris says} with computerized voting machines, I have no REAL vote anyway

    {Gordon replies} ** I agree about this, but what can I do? I’m only one person with a SMALL (key-word, ‘small’) online newspaper.

    {Chris says} and all this takes place while citizens debate on subjects the government has no place being in the first place. And in the end, the whole thing is silly because how can you support individual liberty AND support the government telling you what you can and can not do with your own body.

    {Gordon replies} ** Excuse me? The unborn baby is NOT a part of the woman’s body.

    {Gordon replies} ** At the very least, he/she is a separate human being, and, at the most, NONE of us own our lives, since the babies (born AND unborn) belong to Almighty God -not the woman -A part of GOD’S body, not the woman’s.

    {Gordon replies} ** BESIDES, even *if* the baby were a part of “her” body, that would not make it right for her to be able to do anything with it she wants: Take, for example, drug use and attempted suicide: THESE are NOT allowed, even when dealing with the person’s OWN body (i) not legally, (ii) not morally, and (iii) not as a practical matter of common sense. Doing these things flunks all three all three tests -and so does abortion -except it is ‘legal’, but, per Equal Protection and the rights to pursue life, liberty, etc. NOT constitutional.

    {Chris says} We have a “war on drugs” that is a total failure (drug use has gone up since the war started) and has led to record numbers of incarcerated people in a supposedly free country.

    {Gordon replies} ** Yes -America incarcerates more people than any other country -both in absolute numbers AND in percentages.

    {Chris says} Over 2 million (and growing) are in our prisons and more than half are there for drugs. We are building prisons faster than schools and hospitals. The federal government has grown under every GOP president for decades. Not once has the government got smaller and only under 1 president has there been a balanced budget and that was a democrat!

    {Gordon replies} ** Excuse me? Are you trying to give Bill and Hillary some credit? Well, yes, they *do* deserve credit, but they were NOT about to have ANY balanced budget were it not for Newt Gingrich and the fiscally conservative House AND Senate -which was Republican in both chambers in 1994 for the FIRST time in something like forty years. Republicans were SWEPT into the House AND Senate in 1994 after voters anger over the tax-and-spend policies of Bill and Hillary in 1992. Get your facts straight, Chris.

    {Chris says} We are invading and bombing countries to support freedom and democracy! We would be so much better off under a Paul administration and yet he was basically laughed off the ballot.

    {Gordon replies} ** Correct.

    {Chris says} We have become “we the sheeple”.

    {Gordon replies} ** Correct again.

    {Chris says} So keep arguing about abortion and other things we have no business being involved in

    {Gordon replies} ** Go back and re-read Luke 1:41 and Luke 1:44 -and then take a look at the laws which outlaw murder -and note they were based on “Thou Shalt not Kill” -and then review the law of sowing and reaping before you form an opinion on abortion being something about which the government has no business becoming involved.

    {Gordon replies} ** Our total world population of 6.5 Billion (6.5 Thousand Million) can ALL fit in Texas with about 20-30 feet between each person -and a vegetarian diet would ensure the world’s population not outstrip the resources -since, after all, when eating meat, we feed things like cows, which wastes many calories to produce INEDIBLE products, such as bone, gristle, cow dung, etc.

    {Chris says} while our freedom dissolves around us and one day we will wake up and it will be too late. police are already asking for “papers please” (Stop and frisk)in major cities, all for our protection and freedom.

    {Chris says} {end reply} {He meant by this that he had ended his copy and paste of his reply on this website. –Gordon}

    {Chris says} I don’t understand how someone can be against abortion, while supporting the invasion of a foreign nation, which will inevitably lead to the killing of innocent civilians including women and children.

    {Gordon replies} ** It depends on WHY the invasion was done. Dr. Ron Paul, himself, is not opposed to ALL invasions -just ones in which there is no compelling interest -and, furthermore, our loss of life in Iraq was FAR LESS than in ANY of the other previous “wars,” or haven’t you heard? Do your research on Vietnam, Korea, WW1, WW2, etc., before you go spouting off about Iraq.

    {Chris says} I’m not trying to be rude, but it seems (at least the end effect) that you want to decide which lives are worth preserving and which lives are expendable. The Jesus I know, and I grew up with, would never, ever allow depleted uranium to be used in a war (of course the Jesus I know, wouldn’t want war at all).

    {Gordon replies} ** I am not aware of America poisoning anyone with depleted uranium (dirty bombs, as scientists call them). I DO however recall that Iraq was known to have uranium enrichments a long time ago -and likely still had them when Saddam Hussein refused access to UN inspectors. (Why would he refuse access? Ask yourself that!)

    {Chris says} There were better ways to get Saddam out of power there. The CIA could have gone in and captured him and brought him to justice without any war. In the end, we murdered him, which is somehow ok, because some people all agreed that he should be murdered.

    {Gordon replies} ** Self-defense -and defense of another are legally and morally justifiable -and quite necessary, if and only if no other means is available.

    {Chris says} How do you reconcile your belief in a Jesus who we know was peace loving, and your belief that it was good to attack Iraq and kill thousands of it’s men, women and children.

    {Gordon replies} ** I don’t think that we should carelessly or intentionally kill innocents, but accidents do happen: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few -or the one.

    {Chris says} Blow up hospitals and apartments, steal their oil, change their monetary system from Euro’s to US Dollars (they sold their oil only for Euro’s which are worth much more than dollars). Use radioactive weapons against them and then occupy their land with no end in sight. All while planning another invasion of their next door neighbor. And as for those wmd’s, let us not forget that the US is the ONLY country in the history of the world to use atomic weapons in a war or conflict

    {Gordon replies} ** What war or conflict might that be? We haven’t used nuclear weapons in ages -WW2 was last time I remember.

    {Chris says} (while the “enemy” was desperately trying to negotiate a peace agreement to end the war. But hey, we built them, we have to use them. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese people were killed or maimed and suffered cancers, deformed children and other horrific problems from exposure to radiation.

    {Gordon replies} ** One of my professors at FSU, Dr. Ray Sheline, was involved in the production of “the bomb,” as we call it. While he was very upset that lives were lost in its use, he thinks (and many agree) that the use of the bomb saved more lives that it cost -because prolonged engagement in WWII would have cost many lives -both civilians and soldiers.

    {Chris says} The US knew it would happen and would not allow the international community into the zones and denied the radiation sickness and the horrific damages caused by the 2 bombs we dropped.

    {Gordon replies} ** Is that so? That was before my time -if this is true, it is unconscionable and horrific.

    {Chris says} We could have dropped one of those bombs in an uninhabited area and said the next one goes off in Tokyo.

    {Gordon replies} ** Do you really think that would have deterred the Japanese? Also, for one who holds to high ideals, Chris, I think you miss the bigger picture of what happens to us after death. Yes, I would have supported the dropping of one bomb in an uninhabited area IF that would have worked, but, like my father said about Iraq, the same is probably true with Japan: We civilians really don’t know WHAT the truth is, so it is not expedient for us to be able to think we can form correct opinions on all these matters. Perhaps the government knew something we didn’t know about your proposed alternative strategy -not that I really trust our government, but there exist *some* honest people of conscience in even it.

    {Chris says} I doubt if I’ll ever convince you,

    {Gordon replies} ** Convince me of what? You have disagreed on several points: Abortion, Iraq, and possibly Japan.

    {Chris says} but extreme views (no matter what they are) are dangerous.

    {Chris says} You say you are the most conservative person in the world and I think we would agree that that is an extreme view. People with extreme views

    {Gordon replies} ** Now hold on: What one person considers “conservative” another might consider “liberal.” Take, for example, my legal efforts to get not only Janet Reno’s votes but also Al Gore’s AND the oversees Military ballot votes, counted. Many would see that as a “liberal” attempt to help a “liberal” candidate, but I see it as a “Rule of Law” issue, in which Reno was illegally denied a recount. And, no, I didn’t do it to help Jeb Bush get an easier opponent in his bid for reelection: My fight for the recount continued all the way to the US Supreme Court, long after Jeb was seated. Some details of this are found on my own campaign page, for indeed I am running for Congress. See my personal page for links thereof.

    {Chris says} often lose sight of any view other than their own and end up with conflicting views (like abortion being murder, but murder ok in other circumstances). If you love and admire Jesus as much as you say you do, try to emulate him and follow his teachings. I don’t know if Jesus commented on it, but I’m pretty sure that Jesus would have supported individual liberties and government that serves the people,

    {Gordon replies} ** Yes: Both Moses and Jesus did comment on a standard which, if followed, would ensure individual liberties. Observe:

    {Gordon replies} ** Leviticus 19:18 “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.”
    {Gordon replies} ** Matthew 7:12 “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”
    36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
    37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
    38 This is the first and great commandment.
    39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
    40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
    {Gordon replies} ** Matthew 22:36-40 (King James Version)

    {Chris says} so the people could be free to serve God and not their government.

    {Chris says} So instead of getting caught up in things like abortion and school prayer,

    {Gordon replies} ** Hold on a sec, Chris: You love and support Jesus, and accept His mandate to not have others do unto you as you would not do unto them -BUT you think it’s OK to put a stop to school prayer but allow murder of unborn babies? Really, would YOU like to not be able to pray in school; Would YOU like to be murdered based just on your age or location (young and in the womb)?? Then don’t wish it upon other people.

    {Chris says} think about how much better off we would all be if we were truly free. God made us with free will, the free will to do bad things and it is up for him to judge. Let us not forget that Jesus protected the woman to be stoned by saying Let him without sin cast the first stone. Would Jesus want a government to take away the free will that God so wisely gave us? Are we above God? Is it not against God’s wishes to remove free will from man?

    {Chris says} I hope you take me seriously and think about what I’ve said.

    {Gordon replies} ** Yes, I have -but, what about another person’s free will to kill you and me -would you also take away that? Think about it.

    {Chris signs his email} Chris

    {Gordon signs his email} Gordon Wayne Watts

  • And like half of the Republican National Delegates, I pass to Vote on O’bama and McCain. I am writing in Ron Paul. But why?

    Obama = voting for something that I don’t know
    McCain = voting for something I know
    a) I have family in Iraq/Afganistan that I want home
    b) I do not want them to be tortured
    c) If a man is tortured, then says important information is released by the torcheree, I ask… how many people died because of the information that the person released when they were being tortured?

    I didn’t vote for McCain in 2000. And because of the “SNL” skit that shows McCain on the Campaign trail with Bush… I think you’ll agree that torture doesn’t make for stable minds.

  • Langley, one point is paramount:

    While I would vote for Ron Paul if I thought his name were going to be eligible for a ‘write-in’ vote in all 50 states, and hence have at least a snowballs’ chance in hades of winning, I interviewed Jesse, his campaign manager, who confirmed my worse fears: He is not eligible in something like 10 or 15 states -I don’t know the exact number.

    So, he has no chance of winning.

    Did you not see that in my prior posts here>?

    My next choice might be to vote for Dr. Chuck Baldwin of the Constitutional Party, since he is expected to be not only eligible for a vote in close to 48 states, but, and equally important, to have his name appear on the ballot:

    * http://Baldwin2008.com

    Also, while McCain DID vote with Bush like 90% of the time, the approx. 10% he did not vote for him is CLAIMED by one conservative speechwriter to have been the times that Bush wanted to be a tax-and-spend liberal and McCain opposed pork-barrel spending.

    So, while I’m not firmly convinced McCain speaks for me as a true conservative, I am weighing and considering, and his pick of Palin is about as good as he could have done without picking Ron Paul, I think.

    I will be reviewing my choices come November: I’m still an undecided conservative voter.


    I just now got off the phone with Karen Adams (no relation to John Quincy Adams), at the CONSTITUTION PARTY Headquarters, and she informs me that Dr. Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle, their candidates’ names, will appear on the ballot of at least 40 states -and probably more, as the various paperwork gets filled out.

    She also informs me that Ron Paul said that Dr. Baldwin’s views are basically identical, effectively endorsing him for his bid for President.

    Thus, it seems logical to vote for Dr. Baldwin, not Dr. Paul.

    “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” — John Quincy Adams

  • wikibuddha

    I had intentions to write-in Dr. Paul for this vote, however, I have realized the folly of it (as GW Watts has explained) and will be looking into this Chuck Baldwin fellow, who has a great chance of garnering my vote.

    I would like to add one thing, since the issue has come up…

    One question is “Why be concerned with abortion?” The only reason I’m concerned with it is because it’s shouted in my face from every angle.

    And this is one of those things, you see, I’m not a separatist (black vs white) type of thinker. I examine details and many factor weigh on my final decisions. Abortion is one of those things (like global warming) which as been [attempted to be] reduced to two arguments.

    Are you pro life or not?

    I have been weighing that question in my mind for some time and I have come to the conclusion (similar to GW Watts) that I am pro-quality-life. GW Watts argues that we have the right to attack, even preemptively, in self defense. I do understand the argument that we were defending “the people of Iraq” as BS as I consider that to be. I would also ask whether we had the right to breed Saddam?

    Returning from my digression, GW Watts argues that we have the right to kill (the few) if it is in the benefit of the many. Now, Buddhism also addresses this issue in a parable about a wild tiger that finds its way into the village and after killing a number of villagers, it was decided to kill the wild beast to prevent the loss of further life (one killed for many [potentially] saved). So, there are times for “acts of violence”, however, I will surely argue that in today’s age (Buddhism is reason) that we can avoid killing almost completely. We should have tried to get Saddam alive and tried him in court first.

    Alright, I’m sort of digressing again, but I promise I have a point. That is that in the same line of reasoning, that we can kill for the benefit of many in the guise of military or national interest, then we should be able to kill immature fetuses who are to be born into a situation that is not conducive to a quality of life?

    That’s the thing that pisses me off about “conservatives” so much. They want us to force life into this world, but then the buck stops there. You get hardly anything more than public “education” for the underprivileged that are forced into this world.

    Why should we be so worried about forcing people to bear their children as a punishment for their actions? Why why why is it always about punishing? What about liberating? What about salvation? Note that there’s no context of SAVING in salvation, but SALVE (to heal)? I might never get it. I’m not about to try bringing more life into this world if we can’t take care of the life that’s here.

    And the greatest thing about the USA is that our laws are not written in stone. We can legalize drugs. Why should you deem that, because you read it in some book, someone shouldn’t expose themselves to circumstances that you would prefer not to expose yourself to?

    I think the war on drugs is intended, like the war on terrorism (both BS) a preventative measure. GW Watts alluded to (and maybe I didn’t read it clearly) that drugs are illegal for all their justified, holy reasons, but I still have the outlook that as long as someone is able to make a living, do drugs on their own time on their own property (or other legally sanctioned location), it has NO effect on me. Sure, they might get “reefer madness” and start a killing spree, but like the Buddhist tiger parable, you don’t kill the tiger before he starts killing, you kill him after he messes up. Sure, there’s some minuscule chance that a loved one of mine could be the victim of said reefer madman, but I’ll take that chance. For my freedom. The Karmic Law of cause and effect is very strict and if you follow the Law, you will find protection with the Shoten Zenjin.

    Nam myoho renge kyo,


  • Tom

    How is Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy anything like Obama’s? Democrats are known for their armed conflicts and peace keeping missions.

  • wendell stockdale

    Ron has some great ideas but practically, a vote for him is a vote for Obama who is the most opposite to Paul’s beliefs. Sorry, but it is a fact. You may feel good if you vote for him but in a couple years, you will be sorry you did. obama will be the downfall of our democracy, if he is at all successful if getting what he really wants. Read a couple of the books about him and you can’t help but agree he will be nothing like he professes to be.

  • Xepra

    I fully intend to write in Ron Paul. I figured that we couldn’t just write in “Ron Paul”, as there are probably a number of people named Ron Paul out there. So I called my local county clerk (http://voterinfonet.com/)to see what information I needed to bring. Unfortunately, however, it sounds like my vote will be disregarded unless Ron Paul registered as a write-in candidate.

    “The Clerk’s office will provide a list of eligible write-in candidates to each precinct on Election Day. This list enables election judges to determine which write-in candidates are running in their precinct. Only votes for eligible write-in candidates are counted.”

    Moreover, he had to register as such in all 125 districts in Illinois.

    This is ridiculous, and completely defeats the purpose of a write-in candidate…

    Some links:



  • Michael

    CG– considering your last commentary, I would look to this earlier one for some differing opinions.

  • I wrote Ron Paul in.