If You Are Afraid Of Change - Don't Vote For Ron Paul

COMMENTARY - What is it we Americans see in the Presidential Candidates that leads us to believe either party - the Republicans or Democrats - will steer us out of the wilderness of debt that has been thrust upon us? If you look at the chart below you'll see that it hasn't made a difference which party is in office, the debt just keeps climbing. Even in the economic boom times of the mid to late 90s and the early 00's - when we had budget surpluses - we were unable to pay down the debt. Both parties say they will work to lower the debt, blaming the other side for our fiscal and foreign problems, but the reality is, neither side follows through on the campaign promises. And that's all they are, promises - empty promises.


Date      Party       OutstandingDebt
2010       Dem       13.5 Trillion
2009       Dem       11.9 Trillion
2008       Rep        10.0 Trillion
2007       Rep          9.0 Trillion
2006       Rep          8.5 Trillion
2005       Rep          7.9 Trillion
2004       Rep          7.3 Trillion
2003       Rep          6.7 Trillion
2002       Rep          6.2 Trillion
2001       Rep          5.8 Trillion
2000       Dem         5.6 Trillion
1999       Dem         5.6 Trillion
1998       Dem         5.5 Trillion
1997       Dem         5.4 Trillion
1996       Dem         5.2 Trillion
1995       Dem         4.9 Trillion
1994       Dem         4.6 Trillion
1993       Dem         4.4 Trillion
1992       Rep          4.0 Trillion
1991       Rep          3.6 Trillion
1990       Rep          3.2 Trillion
1989       Rep          2.8 Trillion
1988       Rep          2.6 Trillion
1987       Rep          2.3 Trillion
1986       Rep          2.1 Trillion
1985       Rep          1.8 Trillion
1984       Rep          1.5 Trillion
1983       Rep          1.3 Trillion
1982       Rep          1.1 Trillion
1981       Rep          997 Billion
1980      Dem          907 Billion

So why do we, as voters, continue to go with the same old, party-line thinkers? Do you, as a voter, honestly believe that Mitt Romney will suddenly do something different than whats been done in the past? How about Newt Gringrich? After all the years that ol' Newt has been around politics, what makes you believe he will somehow change what's going on in Washington? Really? You believe the mojo these guys are spewing?

Or do you just cross your fingers and hope? Or have you been snookered? Or worse yet, given up?

There is only one man running that has a completely different view of what's needed to return this country to the great and prosperous place it once was. Ron Paul. And how crazy are his ideas? Why don't you ask the men who drew up the Constitution, as this is his guideline to return sanity to America. If you are tired of protracted wars abroad that never seem to be won, wars that guzzle lives and money like a soulless black hole, then why are you voting for Romney, Gingrich or Santorum? Again...Why would you do that? Ron Paul is the only candidate that will bring our troops home and then use those troops to protect and lock down our borders - and it won't cost taxpayers to do this.

Tired of spending billions defending Europe, Japan, Israel and countless other countries? Even while many of these countries hate us? Isn't it about time for each of them to reach into their own pockets to pay for their own defense? Spend their own money building a military instead of living under the umbrella of our protection? Then why are you voting for Romney, Gingrich or Santorum? Again... Why in the world would you do that? Ron Paul is the only candidate that will change all that. Dr. Paul will bring home the troops and shut down bases all over the world, saving money and forcing countries who have been using us, while laughing at us behind our backs, to spend their own money to stay safe. He will save us billions of dollars while still defending our country should it ever be attacked. And if that should happen, he will go about it the right way - getting a Declaration of War from Congress - then go in and finish it quickly, bringing the troops home, not letting them linger in a far away place for years and years. Am I wrong in assuming that this is what you want?

Do you want to see the economy get better? With less government? Do you want freedom from Washington telling us what to do and how to do it? Do you want to see our debt begin to be paid down? Then why are you voting for Romney, Gingrich or Santorum? None of them is going to do it! Look at the chart! Its not going to happen with any of them! When you look at these candidates, what is it that they say to you that makes a difference? Its time to smarten up - Ron Paul is the only one with a plan to save us one trillion dollars the first year and balance the budget in three! Are you telling me you are against this? Really?!

What are you, the American voter, afraid of? Are you afraid of peace? Are you afraid of having more money in your pocket? Are you afraid of becoming a strong and prosperous country that once again leads the worlds economy? Are you afraid of taking back our great country? Are you afraid of telling the political whores in D.C. that enough is enough? Are you afraid to say to them that We The People tell them what to do and not the other way around? Are you afraid of Term Limits? Are you afraid of returning our monetary system to the Gold Standard so the money you make has real value - here and worldwide? If you are afraid of these things, then by all means, vote for Romney, Gingrich or Santorum. Any one of them can keep this country going just the way it is - Swirling right down the drain. But if you crave change, if you want liberty, if you need to see the US of A on top again, there is only one man to vote for... Ron Paul.

For change.  For America

The Pompous One Endorses Mitt Romney

So The Donald endorses Mitt Romney and... We care why?
The fanfare and circus like atmosphere with which the endorsement was given - and covered by the media -should show every regular Joe, every American working class stiff, just where we stand with the media and politicians alike. Both of these entities heartily believe that this affirmation by Trump will make a difference to the American voter - obviously, or they wouldn't have covered it, right? But, really? I, mean... really? This is such a complete disconnect with reality as to border on fantasy.

This type of endorsement - one offered by a self important and egotistical millionaire - is right up there in the pantheon of the Hollywood celebrity crowd - movie stars and moguls alike - who believe that we poor, uneducated, feeble minded, stupid, stupid people, need to be led by the hand to the promised land, like a child lost in a mystical forest, by the virtue of the grand guiding light that is their wisdom... after all, they are big shot millionaires and actors for crying out loud and that should carry weight! They have a Twitter account, talk with Oprah and Kings alike and belong to a church that was started by a science fiction writer. I mean, my God, these are very important people, and if you don't believe me, all you have to do is ask - they will be happy to show you the latest article about themselves in "The National Enquirer."

And the media is just as bad. Hour after hour of intensely debated theories of who Donald Trump would throw his weight behind. Would it be Gingrich or Romney? And when the question was answered, the new question became - How will this change the outlook for the elections? Now it starts again,each response dissected ad-nauseum with the grand arrogance of peons whose only reason for living is to appear on television once every four years, doling out the minutiae of an over exposed election process, day-after-day, night-after agonizing-night. These commentators - who are the proverbial moths to the flame - appear to be angry, frustrated, pompous donkey butts who were bullied in school yards many years ago and whose only desire is to prove to everyone who used to laugh at them that they are smart and important.

But they aren't. We The People are.

So, where does that leave us? Right back where we started, doing our own homework. Please, don't listen to the pompous real estate barons or make-up wearing adult children whose only real discernible talent is that they make a living "pretending" better than most five year olds. Do your due diligence. Vote for the candidate that you want to back and who will back you - not just the one who you think can win. You will be happier with yourself when you step out of the voting booth.

Trust me.

Once Upon A Time There Was A Psychopath

The Crime Scene Investigator, one of three on the site, was securing the area with bright yellow police tape. The dead-man, his face and neck slashed and cut beyond recognition, had been neatly laid out on his back on the bloodied floor of the dilapidated warehouse.  The dead man was dressed in an Armani suit, feet placed together, arms outstretched as if awaiting his savior, completely soaked in near black, coagulated blood. 

An older Detective, haggard and bent, walked in from the open doors of the truck docks, looking at the body with a practiced eye as he advanced to the crime scene.

The CSI man saw him and waved, "So, what's this... like, twenty-two straight years?" He looked down at the grisly scene before him. "Year after year some poor schmuck gets sliced and diced by a madman and laid out like Jesus on the cross. Christ O' Mighty!"

The detective walked up to the tape, "Twenty-three," he said as he shook his gray haired head. "I was a rookie when this began," he rubbed the back of his neck, fatigue setting in, "and still not a freaking clue as to who this maniac is," he grumbled. "Just once you'd think he would make a freakin' mistake."

Suddenly the CSI man stopped, bent down and with a tweezers pulled from his shirt pocket, picked up a cigarette butt from the floor. "Hmm...may have something here." He walked to the detective and showed him the filter-less butt. "This may be our first break," he said excitedly as he held it up for the detective. "After all this time! If it was in his mouth..." He paused for effect, "then we have DNA, baby!"

The detective squinted from under his hat as he looked and replied. "Not many people smoking filter-less cigarettes anymore," as he took the butt from the CSI guy and dropped it into a plastic bag, sealing and initialing it as he spoke. "I'm gonna' take this to the lab right away," he said absently as he looked through the clear plastic at the crumpled cigarette. "Maybe you're right.  Maybe we finally get a break from it," and he turned on his heel, making his way to the door.

Once outside he opened the baggie and nonchalantly threw the butt on the ground as he continued to walk in the fading sunlight. "Now I'm going to have to change brands," he grumbled to himself as he pulled a pack of Chesterfields from his coat pocket and deftly took one from the deck, held it out in front if him and put a match to it till there was smoke curling off the glowing red cherry. Then, still walking, he let it burn down without putting it to his mouth. With about an inch of the cigarette left, he stubbed it out on the brick wall of the building he was walking by. "I'm getting sloppy in my old age," he thought as he placed the butt into a second plastic bag produced from his pocket, then sealed and signed.

He grinned as he put the bag back into his coat. "DNA my ass."

NFL Pro Bowl - Put it to Bed

After spoon feeding the raging masses of ravenous NFL fans a weekly menu of tender, high-end Fillet Mignon, the chefs at the offices of America's most popular sport, wander the kitchen, picking up every bit of thick, greasy, cold and oily leftover gristle they can lay their hands on, and toss it on a plate in a heaping mound of audaciousness. Walking over to the chalkboard, they write "Pro Bowl" as the "Special of the Day," and then with a sprig of parsley to spruce up the plate, they serve up that sludge to desperate fans in need of one more meal, one more fix and then the chefs smile like piranha swimming in a tank full of gutted swimmers - waiting for the money to roll in.

Why doesn't the NFL just pull the plug on this inane mess of a football game? Do we really need to see the stars of the game we love, moving at half speed, playing not to get hurt? A ridiculous offensive waterfall of points unfettered by a hint of defensive effort? This may work for the NBA All-Star Game, but not for NFL football. This "game" is so far removed from what we see on a weekly basis - heck, lets include the pre-season when at the very least, effort is shown - as to be an embarrassment.

Does anyone really believe players such as the Chicago Bears Matt Forte - he of the newly healed bad wheel - is going to risk injury when he has a new GM to contend with and no contract offer on the table? I applaud those players that want to be at the game to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but the product put in front of the fans is just plain wrong.

In the days of yore, when players weren't making so much money in one season that the average working Joe or Jolene could retire, athletes came to the game and played hard. The money that was paid to the winners was significant enough to induce effort in those playing the game. They needed the extra dough and it showed on the field. Now? The money is used to tip the concierge at the five-star hotel where they are staying.

The NFL should take those players voted to the Pro Bowl and have a glitzy, sparkly, shiny, black-tie gala affair in Hawaii, two weeks after the Super Bowl, with bright lights and a red carpet. Make it a weekend gig with a Saturday skills challenge and then a Sunday evening awards banquet with television cameras, top notch Master of Ceremonies - Mike & Mike are you listening? - and introduce each player or a group of players by position, with a highlight clip of the season just played. Heck, maybe even a table full of tuxedo-ed football analysts to rain praise on the best the game has to offer. And the fans? One more weekend to watch the players they love, party with friends and revel in the NFL's gaudy display of affection for its gladiators.

Its time to put this meaningless sham of a game to bed, and as Dandy Don Meredith used to sing - "turn out the lights, the party's over."

Is a Gingrich / Paul Republican Ticket in the Offing?

Commentary - How would a Republican ticket of Gingrich and Paul suit you?

It has become apparent to anyone watching the South Carolina and Florida debates, that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Texas Congressman Ron Paul appear to have a familiar and respectful rapport on stage, which at times seems downright chummy, including this snippet from the transcripts of the January 23rd Florida debates in Tampa -

WILLIAMS (moderator): Would you support a Newt Gingrich as nominee of the GOP?

PAUL: Well, he keeps hinting about attacking the Fed, and he talks about gold. Now if I could just change him on foreign policy, we might be able to talk business...(LAUGHTER)
WILLIAMS: Speaker Gingrich, are you willing to adjust to pick up an endorsement from Texas?

GINGRICH: And Congressman Paul is right. There`s an area - I think what he has said about the Federal Reserve and what he has said about the importance of monetary policy, the proposal I've issued for a gold commission, which hearkens back to something that he and Jesse Helms helped develop, on which he served on in 1981, and the fact that we have people of the caliber of Lew Lehrman and Jim Grant, who have agreed they would chair such a commission, I think they're areas we can work on.
There are places we disagree very deeply. Iran is a good example. But there are places -- you know, you build a coalition by trying to find ways you can work together, and frankly we could work together a lot more than either one of us could work with Barack Obama.

And this back and forth about NASA exploration of the moon - from the January 26th Florida debate -

BLITZER (moderator): Congressman Paul, Texas, the space program very important there as well. Where do you stand on this?

PAUL: Well, I don't think we should go to the moon. I think we maybe should send some politicians up there... (APPLAUSE) But I went - I went into the Air Force in 1962 and studied aerospace medicine. Actually had a daydream about maybe becoming the first physician to go into space. That - that didn't occur, but I see space - the amount of money we spend on space, the only part that I would vote for is for national defense purposes. Not to explore the moon and go to Mars. I think that's fantastic. That's - I love those ideas.

But I also don't like the idea of building government business partnerships. If we had a healthy economy and had more Bill Gateses and more Warren Buffetts, the money would be there. It should be privatized, and the people who work in the industry, if you had that, there would be jobs in aerospace. And I just think that we don't need a bigger, a newer program, when you think of the people - I mean, health care or something else deserves a lot more priority than going to the moon. So, I would be very reluctant, but space technology should be followed up to some degree for national defense purposes, but not just for the fun of it and, you know, for - you know, for scientific...

BLITZ ER: We're going to leave this subject, but before we do, I want Speaker Gingrich to clarify what you said yesterday in that major speech you delivered on space. You said that you would support a lunar colony or a lunar base, and that if 13,000 Americans were living there, they would be able to apply for U.S. statehood from the moon...

GINGRICH: ...I actually agree with Dr. Paul. The program I envision would probably end up being 90 percent private sector, but it would be based on a desire to change the government rules and change the government regulations, to get NASA out of the business of trying to run rockets, and to create a system where it's easy for private sector people to be engaged. I want to see us move from one launch occasionally to six or seven launches a day because so many private enterprises walk up and say, we're prepared to go do it.

But I'll tell you, I do not want to be the country that having gotten to the moon first, turned around and said, it doesn't really matter, let the Chinese dominate space, what do we care? I think that is a path of national decline, and I am for America being a great country, not a country in decline.

Even when they disagree, they agree -

PAUL: I want to make a quick comment, because Newt's mentioned this quite a few times about balancing the budget for four times. I went back and looked at the record. The budget was - the national debt during those four years actually went up about a trillion dollars. What he's talking about is, he doesn't count the money he takes out of Social Security. So, Reagan nor you had a truly balanced budget because the national debt goes up, and that's what we pay the interest on. So I think you've stretched that a little bit more than you should have.

BLITZ ER: You want to respond to Congressman Paul?

GINGRICH: No, I would just say - I would just say, under the system that was used, we were $405 billion" (inaudible)… (BOOING) I agree with Ron - but let me finish. I actually agree with you, and I propose that we take Social Security off budget so no president can ever again get threaten, as Obama did in August, that he would not send the check out, and you could set Social Security back up as a free-standing trust fund. It does have enough money and you could in fact pay the checks without regard to politics in Washington.

On stage, Gingrich and Paul seem to be watching out for one another, at least as much as one can do during the donnybrooks that the debates have become. So where would this leave the American voter, should these two entities join forces?

For Dr Paul, it would mean a chance to see his platform move into the mainstream where many believe it belongs and, quite possibly, as Vice President, having the power to bring some of those ideas to fruition, like Ending the Federal Reserve and putting us back on the gold standard, lowering the tax rates, term limits, balancing the budget while, in general, helping to reduce big government.

For Newt Gingrich, it would mean not only gaining the valuable delegates from Ron Pauls ardent supporters, but also the organizational skills and fervor those supporters bring to the table. Of course, as a nice perk to go along with those boosters, Gingrich would have a running mate that has shown in many polls , to be a man who could win against President Obama, securing many unhappy Democratic voters who might otherwise had voted to retain the President if Dr Paul were out of the election. If Ron Paul continues to make headway with voters, gaining a bucket full of delegates along the way, the next few months leading up to the Republican convention could be a lot of fun to watch!

Some answers from the transcripts were edited for space concerns

Is Ron Paul Comfortable In The Public Eye?

Monday night after watching the South Carolina Republican debates, it occurred to me that if Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich - both polished and dapper public speakers - had Ron Paul's platform , they would be so far ahead of the other candidates that they'd be lapping the field. A polished demeanor in a candidate is a good thing.

I like Dr. Paul and his platform. I am going to vote for Dr. Paul - but the bottom line is that he just doesn't appear comfortable on the dais, and I believe this is hurting him. He's obviously passionate about his beliefs, this is easy to see, but he stumbles and rambles, jumping from idea to idea without completing a thought, and Monday night it occurred to me that if a voter were listening to him for the first time, unaware of Paul's views, that voter might not be able to fully grasp what the Texas Congressman was attempting to convey - at the very least, his beliefs might sound somewhat convoluted.

When I watch Ron Paul speak, I am befuddled by his inability to follow the simple rules of public speaking that are taught in high school. Stop, think, construct the thought and then slowly and coherently make your statement. Don't fidget, keep eye contact with your audience and use quiet, thoughtful pauses instead of "Ums" and "Uhs." As my Son - one of Dr. Paul's most ardent supporters - asked of no one in particular, "Doesn't he have a speaking coach?"

Every voter should be doing his homework and finding out what each candidate stands for and believes in, but many don't. Every debate is an opportunity for the candidates to corral the undecided voter, a chance to educate the uneducated voter - but to maximize that opportunity, Ron Paul needs to come off as coherent, concise, calm and knowledgeable. Instead, to my eyes, he comes off as flighty, rushed and anxious - unable to be the Head Engineer on his own train of thought. It shouldn't matter, but it does. We should be voting for the beliefs, ideas and convictions each candidate brings to the table, not for how he looks or acts or speaks - but good or bad, this plays into the process.

When Ron Paul is in a one on one interview, he is a more thoughtful and confident person. When speaking to his backers, he is in his element and is obviously comfortable and loose, but he needs to find a way to bring these traits to the table when speaking in a public forum or debate. In the end it could end up dooming his chances of winning the nomination.

I certainly hope not.

Ron Paul - Is His Middle Name Dangerous?

After the polls closed on the New Hampshire Primary with Ron Paul coming in a strong second, the Texas Congressman, smiling under the bright lights of the media, stood at the podium of his campaign headquarters in front of a mass of chanting supporters and responded to being labeled "dangerous" by Rick Santorum and others. He said, "I have to chuckle when they describe us as being dangerous. That's one thing they are telling the truth [about]. Because we are dangerous to the status quo in this country..." while a loud and raucous audience clapped, chanted and hollered.

What is it that makes Ron Paul so "dangerous" to a field of Republican hopefuls and re-treads? Is it because he is garnering more airtime as the race continues - bringing his platform to voters who, in the past, may not have heard him speak - a platform which includes a promise to cut the budget by a trillion dollars in his first year and balance the budget in three? Is it because he will bring our troops home from all over the world, allowing other countries to live their lives as they see fit, without interference from the U.S? Or are they afraid that Ron Paul is waking up Americans with common sense and a simple truth?

Why not Ron Paul as president? Why not this gentleman from Texas? He stands for everything that America strives to be and what Americans want from this great country - Liberty. If he was 6'4" and wore a cowboy hat, he would be the quintessential American Cowboy - Quiet, humble, honest and loyal with a fierce sense of right and wrong. A man of peace, who doesn't look for a fight, but who, when the fight comes his way, meets it head on, with honor - just as he did when called to duty during the Vietnam war - asking no quarter nor hiding behind his wife and two children. When all other Candidates are telling you what you want to hear, Ron Paul looks you in the eye and tells you what he believes in - take it or leave it. Very simple stuff here.

Many are put off by Dr. Paul's foreign policy, labeling him an Isolationist. But the truth of the matter is that he is not an Isolationist, but a non-interventionist. He believes that each country has the right to live the way they desire. To defend themselves in whatever fashion they choose. Have whatever political system they decide upon - without everyone and their brother putting their nose in. But, should there ever come a time when our country needs to defend itself, he believes you follow the Constitution, have Congress sign a Declaration of War and then go in, finish it quickly and get out.

Ron Paul is a man of ideas, but these aren't new ideas. These are the same beliefs that our Forefathers had when they first set down to draft the Constitution. He is the only candidate that will stand up for the American people and end the madness in Washington. Term limits, End the Fed, get rid of the IRS, Capitol Gains and Death Taxes (the more money in your pocket, the more you have to spend and the better the economy).

So, is Ron Paul Dangerous? Only if you work for the IRS, the Fed, the Senate or the House. No more free rides in Washington.

The bottom line is this - Ron Paul is a statesman in a room full of politicians. Do your due diligence when deciding who to vote for. Vote for the candidate that stands for what you believe in, and who, in turn, will stand beside you to fight for that belief. Win, lose or draw, you will know you have done the right thing.