Why I LIke Ron Paul

Leave it to Golf Guy to bring up a point that makes me have to explain myself.

In a previous comment, he noted how, in the past, I have virtually rejected every politician who has ever attained office; but now I am a firm supporter of Ron Paul.

The question, really, is what's so special about Ron Paul that he doesn't fit into my "politicians are bad" schema.

To put it simply, Ron Paul isn't a typical politician. As experience has defined the term, he probably isn't even a politician. He is a defender of the Constitution and people's natural rights. As a representative in Congress, he has a pristine and non-contradictory record proving such. He does not put on airs and claim to be what he is not. If he is a politician, then he is the ideal politician. In Platonic language, he is the quintessential form and all others are poor copies.

It has been noted that while he runs as a Republican, he was in 1988 the Libertarian candidate for president. What this demonstrates is that he transcends partisan politics. He is beholden to nothing but the Constitution and the application of the Constitution to maximize the enjoyment of people's rights.





Many point out that he hasn't much chance of achieving even the nomination, let alone winning the presidency.

If that be the case, then I refer you to my previous, cynical posts.

Music

I think that if you haven't yet learned to play an instrument, then you have made poor choices with your free time.

New Year's Resolution

My New Year's resolution for 2008 is to do all the crap that I resolved to do in 2007.

Howdy, Tyrants

If you wish to limit a person's rights in anyway beyond preventing them from violating another's rights to life, liberty, and property, then you are a tyrant.

Not all tyrants are necessarily equal (I'll take Abraham Lincoln over Hugo Chavez any day), but tyranny in all forms is still evil. A man on trial for one murder does not use his aversion to genocide as a defense.

Think about it, and if you're comfortable with tyranny, then say hello to Stalin, Hitler, and the others who thought that the coercive powers of government ought to be employed for the destruction of freedom.

You might be offended at being compared with communists and fascists. However, you can only take offense if my accusations apply to you, and that would make you one who seeks to force your fellow man to live according to your own foolish five year plan (or 1,000 year Reich).

It may be that my occasional political post offends you. Consider, however, that every one of my points involves leaving you alone. I have never once advocated stripping you of your natural rights. Our rights are our own and are not up for grabs, not by any government, be it dictatorship or democracy.

Christmas Gifts

Christmas with little ones is fun. I enjoyed thoroughly as the kids opened their gifts and squealed in joy.

However...

On any other day, I can say, "Hey, put this stuff away."

But on Christmas, the stuff is all new, so it has no proper place. This means that I need to put it away.

I'm no good at that, and that's why my basement is currently a mess.

Masters of War

I cannot remember for sure (and I could check, but that would betray my innate laziness), but I might have posted a video to this song before.

However, as the (undeclared) war rages on (unconstitutionally), this song becomes more relevant as the second hand ticks.

Some might object to the pairing of American military operations with Nazi aggression, but in the end Poland did not really attack Germany (which Germany used as "justification" for its invasion of Poland) and Iraq did not really have weapons of mass destruction (which the Bush administration used as "justification" for its invasion of Iraq).

If you still object, then you're the reason why young men must continue to die in vain.

Ron Paul will end it. If we had no real right to go in, then there's nothing right about staying. The civil war in Iraq is the product of European imperialism: false borders for false countries. We can't fix that no matter how many guns we have or people we kill--unless we're willing to kill them all, which I am not (and I pray the same sentiment for you).

A Christmas Word (or two... or several more)

We didn't deserve his birth, and (God knows) we didn't deserve his death.

However, it was the will of the Lord, and we are thus blessed.

Hallelujah!

To know that He was born for and died for as one as wretched as I makes me tremble. I am not worthy. None are, and that is the true mystery of God's love.

Merry Christmas to all.

More Christmas Wishes

The Christmas Song

Undoubtedly, the definitive version.

Happy Christmas (War Is Over)

Merry Christmas everyone.

Idle Amusement

A Message From Ron Paul

I recently went farther than I ever have into American politics by actually donating money to the Ron Paul campaign. Mr. Paul is the greatest hope for us as a nation, and I hope that you realize this as you read his latest message. I do not know if Mr. Paul actually wrote it himself. Were he a typical politician, then I would say with certainty that he did not. However, he is atypical, and that makes all the difference.

From Ron Paul:

What an amazing mission you and I are on. What great ideas we uphold -- the legacy of the most important thinkers of liberty in our country's history, and the most important doers of liberty in America. At the top of that list are the donors and volunteers of this campaign.

I could spend all my time thanking personally you and everyone who has done so much for our country's future, and not scratch the surface of what justice demands. But I want you to know how much I owe you, and everyone dedicated to the real America. You and I know our real country -- the America of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, of economic, civil, and personal liberty, of strong families and communities, of great businesses and professions, of strong peace and low taxes and sound money-all of which are under assault by the politicians who occupy our nation's capital.

With your help -- and I can't do anything without your help--I want to change all that. Together, we can restore our constitutional republic, and oust the mountebanks who violate the ideals of the Founders with income taxes, Federal Reserve inflation, deficit spending, preemptive wars, torture, secret prisons, and abolition of habeas corpus.

How thrilling too are all the great Independent efforts in this cause, involving so many tens of thousands of patriots. Of course, since they are Independent, the election laws to do not allow me to coordinate with them in any way. But I will mention that this Sunday, I am really going to enjoy my tea at a party!

We are making real progress. And goodness knows we need to. Help me keep our revolution going and growing. For freedom, peace, and prosperity, for the real America, all our generosity and hard work are justified.

Sincerely,

Ron

Success (But O the Cost!)

Cancel the Everest expedition.

With a combination of generous contributions from Natalie's aunt and uncle (and an excessive lump sum from us--courtesy of my wife, who can only say "No" when it comes to new televisions and other things that any married man with kids can vouch for), we have acquired tickets to Hannah Montana!

Cost of parking: $20.
Pop and popcorn: $20.
Souvenirs: $50 (probably).
Two tickets to Hannah Montana: $400.
The look on my face when I heard how much we'd spent: Priceless.

Dream the Impossible Dream

The most difficult goal that I've ever sought to achieve?

Getting my hands on Hannah Montana tickets.

I have better chance of scaling Mt. Everest in my boxer shorts.

A December to Remember

Most people have probably seen those Lexus commercials that advertise how wonderful it would be to surprise your wife with the gift of a brand new Lexus.

Seriously. Is the point of this commercial really to convince me to spend fifty thousand dollars on my wife's Christmas gift?

The effect of these commercials is not to make me think, "Gee, it would be nice, someday, to surprise the wife with a new Lexus."

The effect is to say, "You're a loser. Look at Mr. Suave. He just bought his wife a new Lexus. See, it's even wrapped with a giant red bow to symbolize how much he loves her."

Lexus uses the slogan, "A December to Remember."

Yeah. Sure.

For me to purchase my wife a car without her knowing, it would have to look something like this:
Thanks, Lexus, for making this a "December to Remember" that I don't have enough money to buy a @#%@ing Lexus.

Ron Paul (Again!)

Have you ever considered what Ron Paul says? Have you ever thought about the Constitution? Do you value freedom?

If not, then why do you read this blog?

Vote for freedom.
Vote for justice.
Vote for America.
Vote for Ron Paul.

Good Song

This is another "Ignore the video, but listen to the song."

Just a Bit of Dylan

And now it's time for a little presentation that is Bob Dylan's genius.








This song is an anthem for the Bush administration.






This song is awesome, if you're able to ignore the fact that Carter was guilty.




Vote however you wish (but I probably wish that you wouldn't), but this song accuses you.







If you've lasted this long, then you deserve this.

Chavez Hating Rationale

Perhaps the message of my last post seemed a bit horrific, but only if you don't fathom the situation.

You've probably been asked--or imagined independently--the question: "If you could go back in time and kill Hitler/Stalin/Manilow/Bin Laden, would you?"

Having seen Back to the Future you may hesitate to say "Yes," simply because of the unpredictable (and in such a case probably massive) butterfly effect that would so alter your present.

Essentially, however, I'm talking about the same issue. No matter how "maturely" he seems to be taking his recent political defeat, Hugo Chavez is a dangerous man. He is, for all intensive purposes, an assailant. If you would use physical force to restrain an assailant, then you must advocate using physical force to restrain him. It's not a matter of me seeing things only in black and white. It's a matter of logic.

It's a basic syllogism.

All A are B.
C is A.
Therefore, C is B.

All tyrants are men who should be resisted, violently if necessary.
Hugo Chavez is a tyrant.
Therefore, Hugo Chavez is a man who should be resisted, violently if necessary.

If you don't like my conclusion, then you have to reject one or both of my premises.

Chavez

Sure, it violates a few of my principles, but if the U.S. government arranged to have Hugo Chavez shot (and killed), I would not protest.

Chavez is dangerous. He should be dead, in the same way that a rabid animal should be dead.

If he wins, then I say kill him.

If he loses, then I say kill him nonetheless.

He has proven himself an enemy to life and liberty, and is thus not worthy of either right.

Kill him.

Mind Your Manners With Billy Quan

Robert Frost

Too many people think that Robert Frost's "The Road Less Traveled" is an optimistic poem about a single man striking out boldly in a new direction and thus accomplishing something wonderful.

It's not.

It's a poem about a loser who never did anything special in his life, but, in his autumn years revised his life-story to sound original and purposeful.

Keep this idea in the back of your head while you read a few samples of some of Frost's other great works. Notice the theme. My comments are in italics.


Don't tell me that the following poem has any hint of optimism in it. It's about how everything, no matter how good or beautiful, becomes bad and rotten.

Nothing Gold Can Stay

Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.



Still think that Frost had a light-hearted view of life? In this next poem he has nature on the verge of destroying humanity.

Once By the Pacific

The shattered water made a misty din.
Great waves looked over others coming in,
And thought of doing something to the shore
That water never did to land before.
The clouds were low and hairy in the skies,
Like locks blown forward in the gleam of eyes.
You could not tell, and yet it looked as if
The shore was lucky in being backed by cliff,
The cliff in being backed by continent;
It looked as if a night of dark intent
Was coming, and not only a night, an age.
Someone had better be prepared for rage.
There would be more than ocean-water broken
Before God's last Put out the Light was spoken.


As for this next one, "Good walls make good neighbors," really? Sure, "Something there is that doesn't love a wall," but the narrator continues year after year to mend the wall, even though the pines and the apples pose no threat to each other.

Mending Wall

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!'
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.' I could say 'Elves' to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."


This next poem has the narrator contemplating suicide.

Stopping By the Woods on a Snowy Evening

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.


Now remember the dominant theme of the above poems before you read this!


The Road Less Traveled

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveller, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference

Let's take a look at this "Road Less Traveled By." According to the narrator, it was "as just as fair"

Shortly after, the scene is described as, "Though as for that the passing there / Had worn them really about the same"

And just before the narrator chooses his road, he says, "And both that morning equally lay." Equally? Then how is it less traveled by? It's not, and that's the point.

This poem reminds me of when old folks say how they had to walk five--no ten--miles to school, uphill, both ways, in the snow.

It's not about doing something special. It's about doing nothing special at all. It's about how we, out of what Thoreau called "quiet desperation," create the feeling of greatness from nothing.

Take the Quiz

	Ron Paul Score: 49	Agree Iraq Taxes Stem-Cell Research Health Care Abortion Social Security Energy Marriage Death Penalty	Disagree Immigration Line-Item Veto
-- Take the Quiz! --

The Beatles Rock

I count The Beatles as one of my favorite bands and as one of the most important musical groups of all time. Here is an evolutionary trip down Beatle Lane. See how they changed and music changed with them.


This first one takes about 15 seconds to start.





















This one has been cleverly presented in the World of Warcraft format.







Holy God, there's so much more that I could post, but if you haven't gotten it yet, then you never will (and I pity you if it's so).

Long Time No Blog!

To my loyal readers (both of them), I offer a sincere apology. I have neglected my duty to keep up on things--even if my posts are usually in vain:

A man said to the Universe,
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the Universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
--Stephen Crane

Today is Thanksgiving, so I'll give a seasonally appropriate rant.

Ask most Americans and virtually all school children why the Pilgrims celebrated the first Thanksgiving, and they will recite a historically inaccurate myth that has persevered for decades.

Let's just get a few things straight.

The Pilgrims did not nearly starve because they were inept farmers. They suffered in the earliest stages of the colony because they landed at Plymouth in December. Think about it. It doesn't matter how great of a farmer that you are, you can't grow anything in the middle of a Massachusetts winter. Half of Plymouth's original English settlers died not because of laziness or ineptitude, but because life in the seventeenth century was hard; and establishing healthy quarters, in the dead of winter, in a foreign wilderness made it even harder.

The "Thanksgiving" attributed to the Pilgrims occurred the following autumn in 1621. It was a three to four day long feast. Food consisted primarily of venison, wild birds, and probably some fish. Due to the lateness of the season, vegetables would probably have been limited to dried corn.

The Pilgrims almost certainly gave thanks during this feast, but it would not have been thanks to the Indians. The Pilgrims were extremely devout protestants who would have given thanks first--and pretty much exclusively--to God. As for thanking the Indians, you have to think in terms of the Pilgrims themselves. Sure, Samoset and Tisquantum (i.e. Squanto) were valuable friends, but Governor William Bradford referred to him as "a special instrument sent of God."

Think about it. To the Pilgrims, the Indians were uncivilized, unchristian savages. The Pilgrims were so terrified of the Indians that during that first harsh winter, they buried their dead at night so that the Indians would not know how miserably weak the Pilgrims were.

The Pilgrims were the kinds of Protestants who viewed Catholics as evil. At least Catholics believe in God and in the divinity of Jesus. The Wampanoags (the Indians whom the Pilgrims "befriended") didn't even know the scriptures, let alone believe a single word of them.

When the Pilgrims made their first settlement, they did so on the grounds of an abandoned Patuxant village. It seems that smallpox (probably contracted from roving English fishermen) wiped the entire village out. To the Pilgrims, this was God's way of establishing for them a place to build a new Jerusalem.

Don't tell me that the Pilgrims provided an elaborate feast to thank godless savages, some of whom had been completely eradicated (by God, supposedly) in order for the Pilgrims to establish a home, and who were their only to serve the Pilgrims (recall the Bradford quote).

Inviting Massasoit and his braves to this first "Thanksgiving" was merely a diplomatic move. Undoubtedly, the Pilgrims had benefited from Tisquantum and Samoset. However, they sought to maintain friendly relations with Massasoit because the Pilgrims' numbers were simply too meager to afford hostilities.

Of course the Wampanoags accepted the invitation because the same was true for them. It was simply good diplomacy. They'd dealt with the English before, and like Powhatan in Virginia, they knew that it was wiser to be on good terms than poor.

Just ask the Pequot.

So why the elaborate myth? It's simple. Most Americans feel somewhat bad about what happened to the Indians. Without a doubt, the English (and later the Americans) stole the Indians' lands. To make up for this, Americans have created a "lost cause" myth--similar to how Gone With the Wind portrays the antebellum South. Perhaps if we celebrate them enough, we can atone for the sins of our fathers.

The other reason that we celebrate Thanksgiving? The federal government made the holiday up (that's right! The Pilgrims did not have an annual feast). Why did the feds make it up? Perhaps the better question is when did the feds make it up, and the answer is during the Great Depression. Our modern Thanksgiving holiday was decreed by FDR so that we could focus on what we had instead of what we didn't have because of poor federal policy.

Oh, and there probably weren't even any turkey's served at the Pilgrims' "Thanksgiving." Turkey's are foul fowl. If you eat them, then you might as well eat garbage. Perhaps on another post I'll tell you why. For now, I'm tired. Robbie's sick and throwing up. Natalie's sick and throwing up. I'm not sick and throwing up, but my Xbox 360 is staring at me from across the room, whispering "Call of Duty 4."

Read these for more interesting notes on Thanksgiving and the Pilgrims. Seriously, these are really interesting.

From Richard J. Maybury: "The Great Thanksgiving Hoax"

From Gary Galles: "Property and the First Thanksgiving"

From Murray Rothbard: "What Really Happened at Plymouth"

Not Up to Date

I haven't blogged lately, and there are reasons.

Reason 1: I have been extremely busy with things less important than deer hunting.

Reason 2: I have been deer hunting.

Reason 3: I have a new game for my XBox360.

Expect more soon, and google Ron Paul--and support Ron Paul. Your freedom depends upon it.

I'm Back!!!!

My computer is back! I am so overwhelmed with joy that I don't even have anything to complain about right now.

Nonetheless, the substance of this post still outweighs the majority of the drab published on Science Guy's blog.

Praise the Lord! His mercy endures forever!

Ron Paul on War and Foreign Policy

Lifted from http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Ron Paul on Privacy and Personal Liberty

Lifted from http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/privacy-and-personal-liberty/

The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.
We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data — a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.

To date, the privacy focus has been on identity theft. It was Congress that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it.

We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, you’re vulnerable. Under so-called “medical privacy protection” rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information.

Financial privacy? Right now depositing $10,000 or more in cash in your local bank account will generate a federally-mandated report to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the United States Department of the Treasury.

And then there’s the so-called Patriot Act. As originally proposed, it:
Expanded the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight;
Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight;

Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage;
Authorized “sneak and peek” warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person’s home, office, or personal property without that person’s knowledge; and

Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons.

I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives.

Ron Paul on the Second Amendment

Lifted from http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/second-amendment/

I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:

H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.

H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.

H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.

H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.

In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.
I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.

You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment.
______________________________
Aristos adds:

One of the first things that the British did to spark the American Revolution was to march on Concord to destroy the local militia's weapons, powder, and ammunition. If the colonists had not possessed their own firearms, then they would have been powerless in the face of the redcoats who meant to deprive them of their liberties.

Ron Paul on Life

Lifted from http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

Life and Liberty
By Dr. Ron Paul

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.
________________________________________________________________

Aristos adds:

I recently read an article in which Congressman Paul described how he, as a young doctor, unknowingly entered a room in which an abortion had just been performed. He described how the standards of the day were rather primative, and that the doctors merely disposed of the baby in a trash can--and he added that he could tell that the premature baby was trying to cry.

If this addition comes across as a nudge towards your emotions (i.e. ad miseracordiam), I do not deny such an intent. If you can discuss abortion without disgust then you are in the same league as the Nazis who ran the death camps.

And no, I will not take that last comment back. We preach to everyone how awful the holocaust was because of the roughly six million people who needlessly died in it. Well, if numbers is the game, then abortion wins over the holocaust, hands down.

Ron Paul's New Declaration

I lifted this from http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/39/a-new-declaration/

A New Declaration
by Ron Paul, Dr. July 3, 2006

On the fourth day of July, in 1776, a small group of men, representing 13 colonies in the far-off Americas, boldly told the most powerful nation on earth that they were free.
They declared, in terms that still are radical today, that all men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights that government neither grants nor can take away.
In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers sought to demonstrate to the world that they were rejecting a tyrannical king. They listed the “injuries and usurpations” that contain the philosophical basis for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

One point of consternation to our founding fathers was that the king had been “imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.” But 230 years later, taxation with representation has not worked out much better.

Indeed, one has to wonder how Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would react to the current state of affairs. After all, they were outraged by mere import tariffs of a few pennies on the dollar. Today, the average American pays roughly 50 percent of their income in direct and indirect taxes.

In fact, most Texans will not start working for themselves for another week. Texans, like most Americans, work from January until early July just to pay their federal income taxes, state and local taxes, and the enormous costs of regulation. Only about half the year is spent working to pay for food, clothing, shelter, or education.

It is easy to simply blame faceless bureaucrats and politicians for our current state of affairs, and they do bear much of the blame. But blame also rests with those who expect Washington DC to solve every problem under the sun. If the public demanded that Congress abide by the Constitution and pass only constitutional spending bills, politicians would have no choice but to respond.

Everybody seems to agree that government waste is rampant and spending should but cut—but not when it comes to their communities or pet projects. So members of Congress have every incentive to support spending bills and adopt a go-along, get-along attitude. This leads to the famous compromises, but the bill eventually comes due on April 15th.

Our basic problem is that we have lost sight of the simple premise that guided the actions of our founding fathers. That premise? The government that governs least is the government that governs best.

When we cut the size of government, our taxes will fall. When we reduce the power of the federal bureaucracy, the cost of government will plummet. And when we firmly fix our eyes, undistracted, on the principles of liberty, Americans truly will be free. That should be our new declaration.

Current Event

Can the U.S. with its PATRIOT Act and "Free Speech Zones" (along with the history of such tyrants as Abraham Lincoln--who arrested oppositionist newspapermen, suspended habeas corpus, endowed himself with unconstitutional "emergency/war powers," and waged a terrible war that brought death and destruction to the country) really criticize Pakistan's government?

If you think that Pakistan's government is out of line, then you must agree with me that the United States is--and has been since the Civil War--out of line.

The Bush administration cries "Wolf" and we duck and cover and accept whatever he does in our "defense." We only see the evil of government in other lands (e.g. Musharraf's Pakistan).

Christianity and Such

As the Christmas season approaches (and retailers certainly won't allow us to forget it), we should reflect upon the magnitude of the gift.

Why does God so love us that he would become man and suffer such humiliation and pain?

Why did Jesus think that I was worth it? What have I done to deserve it?



Please comment on which of these versions you prefer and why.



I sometimes think that God requires too much of us in regards to faith. We are asked to believe based upon ancient documents written by rumored authors. A re-reading of C.S. Lewis usually sets me back on the right track.

Of Lewis's many insightful observations, one sticks out at the moment. He writes in reference to those who believe that Christianity specifically and God in general are the product of men. If you took it upon yourself to create a religion filled with rules and a recipe for eternal salvation, would you design such a difficult curriculum? Would you make it so hard to be good? Would you sell your religion to the masses by telling them that they are so bad that they can only be saved by grace?

The beauty of that observation is that it's so obvious. No sane man would simply make up Christianity, and so many people would not follow the preachings of a lunatic. Remember what it took for Saul/Paul to convert.

I still can't get over why Jesus would die for us. That, my friends, is the mystery of faith.

Golf Guy's Comments

Golf Guy's computer has been acting up, and I can sympathize with him. There's a rumor that my "good" computer will be repaired and returned soon, but until then I'm stuck in Windows 98 limbo.

Anyways, Golf Guy's computer freezes up whenever he tries to comment to my posts. He blames the computer, but I think that it's Giuliani/Clinton orchestrated plot. Whatever the case, I will report Golf Guy's comment faithfully.

To my post regarding the actual meaning of the word "liberal," Golf Guy suggests that Democrats are indeed "liberal" with our money. I reply that the same sentiment could apply to Republicans (minus Ron Paul) as well.

However, I also suggest that Golf Guy himself is skewing the connotation of the word. He means that the Democrats spend our money freely (i.e. without control). This is true, but "liberal" is not the proper word. Since our money is our property, and we are free men with natural rights to our property, those people who take our property against our will cannot be liberal. In fact, such people are tyrannical--they deprive others of their freedoms. You are free to enjoy your freedoms. You are not free to inhibit others' freedoms.

He also suggested that Jeff Buckley's version of "Hallelujah" is even more haunting than John Lennon's "Imagine."

I'm not sure if "haunting" is an appropriate participle for "Imagine," but I'll give him that Buckley's song is haunting. "Imagine" might be called "hauntingly beautiful," but "Hallelujah" rings of "hauntingly tragic," even mournful.

Alas.

Imagine

I love this song, even though I disagree with a few premises. As a Christian, I obviously decline to imagine that there is no heaven. As a philosopher, I decline to imagine no possessions. You deserve what you have, if you haven't acquired it by violating another's rights. The irony is that when Lennon imagined no possessions, he was wealthier than the vast majority of the people in the world. It's like Hef promoting celibacy.

Nonetheless, the song is beautiful and it resonates.

Computer Hell

Holy God Almighty, this computer is so slow and faulty, if it were a man, then I would punch it in the face, kick it in the groin, disembowl it with a spork, and strangle it with its own duodenum.

The rumor is that the motherboard on my good computer (yeah, the good one that always breaks the freak down) is being replaced as we speak, and it will be returned as good as new this weekend.

Holy God Almighty, I pray so.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; the wisdom to know the difference; and the opportunity to destroy all of my enemies.

Liberals

In this accelerating political climate, I think that it's time that we the thinking people (who you must be, since you read this blog) take back the word "liberal." For too long it has been associated with big-government socialists. A true liberal does not advocate an activist government. A true liberal advocates a limited government--limited to protecting natural rights to life, liberty, and property--if he advocates a government at all.

"Liberal" comes from the Latin "Libere" (to free), hence "liberty" is interchangeable with "freedom."

That said--and there is no use arguing the point since it is irrefutable what the word is supposed to mean--Democrats are not liberal. Yes, it's Democrats who are commonly called liberal, but that's a load of horse manure. Democrats advocate a larger, more powerful, farther-reaching government. Government gains size, power, and reach only at the expense of its people's freedom. Therefore, Democrats are unliberal.

Republicans--with the exception of Ron Paul--are also unliberal. Any politician who does not advocate policies that directly return basic freedoms to the people cannot, by definition of the word, be liberal.

So the next time some idiot says, "Hillary Clinton is too liberal," please correct that person; and the next time some idiot says, "George W. Bush is not liberal enough," tell the person that he is right, but that he's probably too much of an idiot to realize why he's right.

Let's take back the damn word. Let's give today's so-called "liberals" their appropriate sobriquet: tyrants.

For further reading, see Ludwig von Mises's excellent Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition..

http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Classical-Ludwig-Von-Mises/dp/0930439236

Icky Thump

Jack White is a genius.

My favorite line is "Well, you can't be a pimp and a prostitute too."

I enjoyed the irony of Spanish subtitles in this.

Vincent

Some have called the song sappy or lame, but I think that it's beautiful, poetic, and tragic. Had I made the following presentation, I would have changed the timing of some of the slides differently, and I would have included a few different ones here and there. However, it's still a nice sample of Van Gogh's work.

More Ron Paul and a Rant

Good Lord, I wish that more readers read this blog. I wish that I could reach out and embrace people and tell them that we can accomplish something good. I wish that I had the power to introduce everyone to Ron Paul.

Unless you are a bandit who wants government to redistribute wealth from the producers to the non-producers, unless you are a tyrant who wants government to tell people what to produce and what to consume (and how much to consume), unless you are a fool who thinks that the government is an instrument of socio-economic change, then you should support Mr. Paul.

All other Republicans are socialists in facists' clothing. All Democrats are socialists in communists' clothing. All together, with Mr. Paul as the exception, are demagogues who play upon your fears.

Mr. Paul is the only major candidate for president who not only knows the constitution but adores it. His record as a congressman shows that he doesn't just preach limited government. He practices it. He believes that human beings are born with natural rights. These are not rights granted to us by the state. We are born with these rights. As Jefferson said, all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." And the only purpose of government is, as Jefferson also said, "to secure these Rights."

Look at the other candidates. To them, the government exists for far more. Consider what happens to your liberty when you grant the government that much more power. Power to the government is paid by your liberties.

You are not better off less free. What separates man from the beasts is our ability to think freely and abstractly. Defer this right to the state, and you are by definition less of a man (or woman--I must make room, after all, for Surrealist!).

I belong to no one else. I am myself, and I am my own. If I could hold Locke's so-called "Social Contract" in my hands, I would tear it to pieces because I have yet to experience a government with true respect for my rights. How am I held to this so-called contract if I never signed it?

What's mine is mine, and I'll take it and keep it and covet it. Unless I wrongfully take what is yours, then leave me alone and call your government off, for it has no right to my life, my liberty, or my property.

Vote Ron Paul

St. Natalie

Before you read this post, I'll introduce you to a new term. "Eddie" is my mother's new husband. I won't call him my step-father because a). he didn't raise me, and b). he's only nine years older than me. While my mom wants the kids to call him "Grandpa Eddie," I tell them to call him "Mr. Ed" (of course, of course). It's not that I hate the guy, it's just...well, that's another post for another day when I've had too many fermented beverages.

The story begins after mom and Eddie left following Robbie's christening. They had purchased gifts for Mark and Robbie, but had not done so for Natalie due to not knowing exactly which Hannah Montana DVD's she already had. However, they departed with a promise to send her a gift.

Here's the story, which takes place a few days later (about a week ago).

Natalie, my dear, sweet daughter just the other day looked down in the dumps. My wife asked, "What's wrong?"

"Oh, nothing," Natalie replied." It's just that I broke one of the ten commandments."

"What did you do?" my wife asked.

"Oh, I was jealous because Mark and Robbie got gifts from Eddie, and I didn't," she confessed.

The next time that I get angry with her for whining and such, I hope that I remember her sorrow at having envied. "The faith of a child," indeed. Of course, she ended up receiving a Hannah Montana DVD in the mail shortly thereafter. And, of course, I have at least reminded her three or four times that "Honor thy father" is also a commandment...

"Nobel" Gas That's Not Inert

So Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize, even though his work has neither promoted nor secured world peace. In fact, Gore's plan for us would lead to widespread global poverty, to such an extent that tensions would almost certainly increase, making war between nations and civil wars much more likely if not extremely probable. Ladies and gentlemen, that's called irony.

On the other hand, if Gore can win a Nobel Peace Prize, then there's really nothing stopping me from winning the Nobel Prize for Literature--the award being based upon this blog, of course. Sure, this blog isn't really literature, but it's pretty clear that the Nobel crew doesn't really give a darn about truth or merit.

Click on the following link to read an interesting article that mentions, among other things, the potential and likely benefits of global warming.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08

Ron Paul: A New Hope

Good watching.

What Now?

When will the maddness stop? When can we get on with our lives as we intend to live them?

When you turn out for Ron Paul, that's when. Everyone else is the same old trash: a little socialism, a little fascism, a little mercantilism, a lot of tyranny.

Don't say that I didn't warn you. Go for anyone else, and you'll get more of the same but worse.

Universal Soldier

Forget the video. Just listen to the song.

A Pretty Good Guitarist

I just happened by this on youtube. It's not bad (for an understatement)

OK Go - Here It Goes Again

A simple but awesome video backed by a mindlessly cool song.

Football

We lost our first football game in over two seasons by a score of 14-18. Alas!

Why did we lose?

Reason #1: Three fumble losses.
Reason #2: 50 yards in penalties.
Reason #3: Scant downfield blocking.
Reason #4: Defensive Ends did not contain (All three opposing TD's came from sweeps).

I told the boys that we would go undefeated this season IF we played with our heads. We did not play with our heads. Therefore, we are not undefeated. Alas!

Christ or Hitler?

Here's a false dilemma for you.

T.S. Eliot wrote that any nation unwilling to be Christian can pay its respects to Hitler or Stalin. As much as I like Christianity and loathe Hitler and Stalin, Eliot's statement is a logical error.

Making the alternatives to Christ as bad as Hitler and Stalin is a dishonest comparison. Especially when other alternatives may be no better than George W. Bush.

Am I a Hater?

I was on a tirade about people whom I hate (e.g. Hugo Chavez, Al Gore, George W. Bush, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Abraham Lincoln, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudi Giuliani, Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden, Scott Baio, etc.), and a friend quipped that I seem to hate everyone.

My response was simple. I hate everyone who presumes that I am an idiot. I hate everyone who thinks that he or she can make my life better by telling me what to do with it. I hate everyone who's hands are in my pockets. I hate everyone who thinks and acts as if the world exists to serve her (e.g. Hillary) or him. And I hate Scott Baio for the same reason that I hate Ben Affleck (I take it that I don't have to explain this).

I do not hate everyone. I do not hate anyone who leaves me alone to live as I choose and to enjoy the fruits of my own labor. I do not hate anyone who strives for justice truly. In short, I do not hate Ron Paul. Vote for him. I've never had faith in the electoral process, but if Ron Paul makes it, then I will convert! Do it for me, but do it moreso for America and humanity in general.

But I hate Scott Baio, and there's nothing that can shake me of that. Al Gore and the rest can admit publicly that they are liars and demagogues, and I'll let them slip away into obscurity. But not Scott Baio. Damn him. Damn him forever. I cannot forgive Charles in Charge. Besides, we all know that Buddy was the heart and soul of that show.

Bad Day

I coach 7th grade football. We've not lost a game in three years, but that's not my point (the point of that was to brag).

Today, as my team suited up, the assistant principal of the school at which I coach came into the locker room and asked for a particular boy. He--the assistant principal--was there because this boy's mother and uncle were waiting in the office to tell the boy that his dad had just died.

I asked what happened, but the AP didn't know. All he knew was that the kid's dad was dead.

On more than one occasion, I recall uttering "Jesus," to myself.

We located the boy, and he was just about finished donning his equipment. I saw that he was happy. The only care that he had in the world was whether or not he would play second or third string in tomorrow's game.

I pointed him out, and the AP asked him to come with him to the office. The boy said, "OK," and waited to go. The AP asked him to change back into his clothes, and the boy complied. However, I noted a distinct confusion in his face, as if he was thinking, why am I going to the office? After changing into his regular clothes, he said, "OK," and the AP told him to grab all of his stuff (e.g. his backpack). "OK," the kid said, and I could see that he was baffled.

I wanted to reach out to him and give him a hug, but I knew that I would only add to his confusion. Instead, I watched him leave: confused but still happy. He had no idea that he was living the final moments of his life in which he thought that he still had a dad.

I was, by this time, somewhat nauseous. I was five years old when my own father passed away, but my father died of cancer, and it was not a surprise even for a five year old. This kid, however, had no idea that his dad had just hours earlier keeled over with an apparent heart attack.

The next time that you think you're having a bad day, try to think of this kid who was getting ready for football practice, smiling and talking to his buddies, and then led away to be told that his father was a corpse.

Al Gore and Another Note

I enjoyed the following article, forwarded to me by Golf Guy. It's about the whole Al Gore getting the Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps George W. Bush is next, since he has helped so many rest in peace.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/miranda-devine/2007/10/13/1191696237215.html

Also, my dear old aunt (great-aunt), actually, took my advice and went to see 3:10 to Yuma. She disliked it. One of her primary complaints was that the pistolship of the antagonist was too accurate, and that much of the violence was unrealistic (especially the marksmanship).

Of course she is correct in noting that the skills necessary to do what is done in the film exceeds likelihood, if not reality. However, I decline to accept that as a real reason to dislike the film.

There's a difference between reality and realism in movies. A good movie can take something utterly unreal and make it realistic, in that you accept what is happening without complaining. Based on Russel Crowe's portrayal of Ben Wade, the film's antagonist, I, at least, was able to believe him capable of such fast and accurate shooting. The desperateness of Christian Bale's protagonist, Dan Evans's, situation allowed me to excuse the fact that a man with a Civil-War era prosthesis was able to leap from rooftop to rooftop.

If I let reality interfere with my entertainment, then I would dislike some of the greatest movies ever made, including Star Wars because things can't explode in flames with great noises in space. I would hate Disney/Pixar's Toy Story because toys aren't alive with personalities, and I would despise The Chronicles of Narnia because it is just plain silly to think of talking beavers and all of the other utter nonsense.

I suppose it's a matter of being able to suspend disbelief. It's why were're able to say, "It's just a movie." If we couldn't do that, then movies would be pretty dull.

On the other hand, this criticism came from the same woman who urged me to see Victor/Victoria...

Two Mark Quotes

Today I trimmed my beard a bit. While I was doing so, Mark looked up and asked, "Why are you doing that? Are you trying to look like me?"

A few days ago, Mark found Natalie's school ID. "How did Natalie get a driving license?" he asked in disbelief.

Ron Paul is Bill Maher's New Hero

Just in case you don't click the link in the article below.

Ron Paul Article

I took the liberty of lifting this article, written by a friend. It is originally posted at lewrockwell.com.

FAQ on Ron Paul
by Bob Murphy

In the interest of providing a one-stop introduction to Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, I offer the following list of Frequently Asked Questions:

Q: Who’s this Ron Paul guy I keep hearing about?
A: Ron Paul is a 10th term U.S. Congressman from Texas. He held office from 1976–1977, then from 1979–1985, and then again from 1997 until the present. He ran for president on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. In his private life he was an ob-gyn, who received his medical degree from Duke University School of Medicine.

Q: What are Ron Paul’s political views?
A: Ron Paul is a strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Because he votes against any Congressional bill that is not authorized under a commonsense reading of the Constitution, people call him "Dr. No." Lobbyists learned long ago not to bother taking Ron Paul out to dinner or a baseball game.

Dr. Paul is dedicated to liberty and limited government, in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson. As such he opposes the welfare state, but he also opposes the warfare state. To him, this is not an eclectic blend of "conservative" and "liberal," but rather the only consistent position that is very distrustful of the central government in D.C. After all, conservative Republicans know only too well that efforts to fix the economy and help the poor – through taxes and regulations – always backfire and end up hurting the very groups whom the compassionate Democrats want to help. But by the very same token, why should we trust the same government to send bombers and tanks across the ocean in order to liberate entire countries and give them peace and democratic government?

If elected, Ron Paul pledges to bring the troops home immediately, abolish the IRS, and end the failed War on Drugs. He is personally pro-life (having delivered many babies) but believes abortion is a matter left to the states – this is again a reflection of his principled belief in the federalist design of our government. (It’s not the federal government’s job to punish adult homicide, either.)

Q: I personally agree with most of these positions, but c’mon, isn’t Ron Paul just a fringe candidate? Doesn’t his support basically consist of about 3,000 people on the Internet?
A: This was actually my opinion, about six months ago. I thought Ron Paul was great but that nobody outside of small libertarian circles would even hear about him. But then I was shocked to see him on Bill Maher’s show, where he was received as a rock star. (Look at this clip about 7:00 into it, to see fellow guest Ben Affleck clapping along with the crowd at Paul’s statement.)
There are plenty of other indicators that Ron Paul has widespread – and exponentially growing – support. As is well known, he either wins or places in all of the televised debates. (Watch this hilarious clip to see the disbelief and goofy excuses from people at Fox News over this.) In the third quarter, he raised over $5 million, and in fact got $1.2 million of it in one week alone. (See this short but very flattering ABC story about this impressive fundraising feat.)

Ron Paul is also a star among college students and young people generally. Have you seen Ron Paul signs hanging on overpasses while on a road trip? I sure have. (And I haven’t seen any signs from other candidates.) On a recent trip to New York City, my wife and I were approached by his supporters in Union Square, who said, "Have you heard about the antiwar candidate Ron Paul?" I didn’t see anybody trying to convince the cool West Village passersby about the "anti-terrorist candidate Rudy Giuliani."

Another fact that might surprise you: Among the GOP candidates, Ron Paul has raised the most money from military personnel. Isn’t that odd, since he is supposedly the cut-and-run traitor? The people who are actually over there in Iraq winning hearts and minds apparently support his pledge to bring the troops home and to stop meddling in foreign affairs.
Finally, just look at how Ron Paul is making mincemeat of everyone else at the various straw polls so far. (If you don’t really know what a straw poll is, you might want to consult this Wikipedia explanation.) To summarize the results as of this writing: Of the 31 straw polls, Ron Paul placed first in 14 of them, he placed second in 6 of them, and he placed third in 5 of them. In each of his three most overwhelming victories, he received more than seventy percent of the total votes cast! (His best performance was in the West Alabama straw poll on August 18, where he garnered an amazing 81.2 percent of the votes.) Incidentally, these straw polls are from various regions of the country, too – it’s not that Ron Paul does well in the Deep South but nowhere else.

Q: OK you’ve made a good case that there are certain pockets of American society that heavily favor Ron Paul. But he’s still only getting a few percentage points in general surveys, right?
A: It’s true that Ron Paul still polls in the single digits in scientifically conducted random surveys. However, that’s not necessarily the best gauge of how someone will do in the primaries. After all, the Republican Party isn’t going to pick its nominee by calling random telephone numbers. Supporters have to care enough to register and vote for their preferred candidate. So if I’m telling you that Ron Paul is absolutely blowing people away – sometimes receiving over 80 percent of the votes cast – amongst people who watch the Republican debates and care enough to cast a cell phone vote, or who care enough to drive out to a Republican straw poll and plunk down the $35 to cast a vote, while people who receive random phone calls might not have heard about Ron Paul… Which bit of information is more relevant to how the primary votes will go?

But don’t just take my word for it. Here’s an interesting analysis of why Ron Paul could conceivably win the Iowa caucuses, and note that this analyst isn’t saying, "Oh Ron just has to win for the future of this country!" No, this writer is bringing up the fact that evangelicals can’t unite behind Rudy, Ron Paul has a great organization, etc.

Q: Fair enough, Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas and a lot more support than I had realized. But still, I’m a conservative Republican who is practical. Isn’t a vote for Ron Paul basically a vote for Hillary Clinton?
A: There are two levels to this question. First, if we’re talking about voting in the primaries, then no, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul. If you think (say) Rudy Giuliani is the best person to face off against Hillary Clinton, then you don’t need to worry about "wasting" your primary vote. You can go ahead and vote your conscience for Ron Paul in the primary. If (as you suspect) he only gets 5 percent, then no harm; Rudy or Mitt or Fred wins the GOP nomination, and then you can go vote for him against Hillary Clinton (assuming that is how you rank things).

But let me push the question deeper. I challenge the premise that Rudy or Mitt or Fred is a stronger GOP candidate in the general election against Hillary Clinton. Like it or not, the general public is fed up with George Bush and his war. Even though she won’t pull the troops out, Hillary Clinton will have a huge edge just on that ground alone. But she loses this edge completely against Ron Paul. Ron Paul actually voted against the Iraq invasion (and against the Patriot Act). He is the one GOP candidate who can neutralize the baggage of the war for the Republicans. On top of that, he can beat Hillary on socialized medicine because he is an actual medical doctor, and so he can credibly talk about the dangers of bringing more government into the equation.

In conclusion, if you will vote in the Republican primaries and the only thing holding you back from voting for Ron Paul is the fear of President Clinton, then I think you need to carefully reevaluate that strategy. Ron Paul is the one GOP candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton in the general election. And on top of that pragmatic edge, Ron Paul is also the only true conservative running.

Ron Paul Resonds to Union Leader Editorial

*Note: I accessed the following text dated 10/8/07 from Mr. Paul's own website.*

Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.

If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?

It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.

A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.

At the Christening

Today, at Robbie's baptism, I showed Mark how to daub his fingers in holy water and make the sign of the cross on his forehead, abdomen, and both shoulders.

"Why do I do this? Mark asked.

"Because it makes God happy," I replied.

"Why does God want my shirt to get wet?" he responded.

I had no answer. Add that to the other slew of theological dilemmas.

The Fight

It was my second day of 8th grade, and I was 13 years old by less than a month. Yet, in the final minutes of the school day, I would accomplish a feat that would solidify my reputation.

I lived 1.8 miles from school, which meant that I did not qualify for the school bus--the minimum distance being two miles. The nearest bus stop from home was half a mile. That was better than 1.8 miles, so I took the bus on days that I did not bring my tenor saxophone home (my mom usually picked me up when I brought the sax home)

So it's the end of my second day at Tyee Middle School in Bellevue, Washington, and I'm not bringing my sax home, so I get on the bus.

I seated myself next to beautiful Michelle. I probably didn't have a shot with her (and she probably rolled her eyes when I sat down), but I was sitting next to her nonetheless.

Everything was great. If she rolled her eyes, I didn't notice, and we had the beginnings of a perfectly delightful conversation.

That's when Woodsy showed up.

We called him Woodsy, but that wasn't his name. If it gives you any idea as to how big of a loser this kid was, I don't even remember his name--and I remember some pretty obscure stuff.

Woodsy was the fat kid who nobody liked. When I say the fat kid, I don't mean chubby. I mean grotesquely fat. 5' 9" and 300 pounds fat. When our gym class had the swimming unit, this kid was allowed to wear his t-shirt so that the rest of us wouldn't have to see his gigantic man-breasts. There is honestly no image that I can provide to help you really understand how enormous the kid was. He was taller than most and fatter than all.

And he walked right up to me and Michelle and ordered me to move.

"This is my seat," he said with the arrogant tone of a man who thinks that he's talking to a pipsqueak. I was about 5'6" and exactly 152 lbs--I know this because 155 lbs. was the maximum weight for my football league, and I had just weighed in.

I looked at him, and I looked at Michelle. I instantly knew that no good would come of this.

I'm a pretty clever man, and I was a pretty clever boy. So when he said, "You're in my seat," I replied with the cleverest thing that I could think of at the time.

Something like, "I don't see your name on it."

"Move it, or I'll make you," he threatened; and I could see that he truly meant it.

This kid had been teased for the majority of his life, and I was going to be the object of his vengeance. He had picked his victim carefully, for I was not one with a reputation for toughness (remember, I was in the band).

Once he'd told me that he'd make me move, everything slowed down. I was able to think clearly, but it seemed as though time was nonexistent. In the absence of space-time, I thought long and hard about my response. If I moved, I'd look like a wussy to Michelle. On top of that, it would surely be the talk of the school that I( had backed down to Woodsy.

I did not fancy the outcome of compliance, so I answered his threat defiantly with, "I'd like to see you try," and then something about his mother.

Like I said, time had come to a halt, so I remember everything with crystal clarity.

After I'd refused his command and insulted his mother, a look of pure rage came across Woodsy's face. He'd thought that for once someone else would be the victim of ridicule, but once again it was him. If a clock had been ticking in the background, each second would have counted ten in real time.

I knew that I was going to have to fight, but I was not prepared for what happened next. Instead of punching me--for which I was ready--he turned and sat on me. All 300+ lbs. of him came down on my lap.

I was not ready for this, but my adrenaline was pumping--and he was a bit off balance--so I threw him off of me and back into the bus aisle.

Remember how I said that time had nearly stopped? At this point it sped forward to make up for its lost seconds.

I jumped into the aisle to face him with my back against the back of the bus (I was about half-way between the front and the back of the bus).

He lunged forward with both hands outstretched, as if to choke me. I stepped back with my right foot and then leaned forward with my left and delivered a right hand punch to the top of his left eye socket.

He recoiled instantly, spewing forth a shower of spit and screeching in pain as his head snapped back.

I took a step back, waiting for him to recover. He shook his head like a bull and (like a bull) charged me. I back-peddled to the end of the bus, keeping him narrowly at bay with both of my arms outstretched.

I pushed back as he pushed forward, but I was stuck with my back pinned to the rear of the bus. I still remember the furious glare of his eye--the other one, the one I had hit, was swollen shut.

In only a few seconds, the bus driver was there, yelling for us to stop. Since I was not a bad kid, never before had I been in such serious trouble, I dropped my hands in submission.

Woodsy did not.

Instead, he reached out, snatched my glasses right off of my face, and crushed them between his hands.

I didn't even think about my next move. I just grabbed him by the collar, pulled him toward me and turned him around toward the back window. I remember looking at him, and I remember the surprised look on his face. Then I drew my right arm back and let loose with a furious jab that landed squarely on his nose. His head could not snap back this time because it hit the window, and I recall the popping sound as his nose broke. He squealed again, and this time blood flew from his mouth and peppered my face. He slowly slid down the back of the bus with his hands over his face and making the unmistakable sounds of a 13 year old in excruciating pain (half-way between a stuck pig and a sobbing toddler). Try to imagine how beat up the kid was. Four years later, a different guy backed down from a confrontation with me because a mutual friend of ours reminded him that I was a good fighter--and that was a direct reference to this fight.

The bus driver grabbed me by the shoulder and yanked me between her and Woodsy. I did not resist. I was shaking. I was scared. I'd never done anything like this before. She also grabbed Woodsy, and as she pushed me from behind, she pulled him down the aisle.

As I exited the bus, I saw my mother. She had come to pick me up with my sax. Instead, she'd spent the last minute terrified as kids told her that I was fighting. When she heard people yell, "Gross, blood!" like any mother she had feared that it was me. Instead, I passed her unscathed with just enough time to say, "He broke my glasses!" At that moment, she saw Woodsy being pulled from the bus, with his one eye swollen shut and his nose spewing blood. "Oh Jesus!" she said--and I have to admit that I was pretty proud of that. Take what you want from that admission, you Freudian creeps.

On the way to the main office, it occurred to me that I was in big trouble. I knew that I'd broken Woodsy's nose. There was no mistaking that sound--it was like a champagne bottle. I, on the other hand, was completely unhurt.

I still remember sitting in the Assistant Principle's office and explaining to Mr. Giadrone that I had never intended to fight and that I only hit the kid because he'd gone after me.

I was lucky. Since I'd never been in any real trouble before, I got away with only a one day in-school suspension. I managed this by being sufficiently contrite and convincing Mr. G that I actually hoped that Woodsy and I could become friends.

I still remember the look on Woodsy's face when I suggested that we might be cool. He had no friends at all, so this was like a birthday and Christmas present rolled in one. If he played his cards right, then he'd end up with a buddy.

Unfortunately for him, I had no intention of being friends. I'd only said it because I knew that it was what Mr. G wanted to hear.

Woodsy was absent for two days., and he spent his first day back in in-school suspension. I had already served my in-school suspension, and the outcome of the fight had bolstered my reputation to the point that one of my football friends, who went to another middle school, had even heard of the altercation. These were glory days for me.

So here I was, basking in glory during lunch recess, when Woodsy approached. He was wearing sunglasses, but anyone could still see the black and blue eye and the tape meant to straighten his broken nose. He'd looked like a loser before, but now he looked even worse.

I scarcely remembered suggesting that the two of us could be friends, and when I'd said it, I'd said it only to get out of trouble. However, to him it had been an answered prayer.

I stood there amongst several friends as he approached. I saw them look at me as he neared. Woodsy smiled, waved, and said, "Hi buddy!"

I knew how important it had been for me to beat the kid up, and I also knew that I could not be his "buddy" and retain the increased status that I had achieved by beating the holy hell out of him. And it was in this epiphany that I chose to do the one thing that I regretted from the whole thing.

I cocked my fist and glared at him. I told him to get his fat ass away from me or that I'd beat him again.

My friends laughed as Woodsy's smile sank. What I'd just said had hurt him more than my fists had three days ago. I'd convinced the kid that I was willing to be his friend, and for three days he had reveled in the idea of having at least one buddy. Instead, I tore that dream to shreds, and for what? To make me look cool to some other 13 year olds, none of whom do I even talk to today?

I don't regret cracking his left eye socket. He'd lunged forward as if to choke me.

I don't regret breaking his nose. When my guard was down, he swiped off and crushed my glasses.

But I do regret saying what I said three days after it had happened. When I'd hit him, it was honest to goodness self-defense. But when I said what I said, it was just mean.

Besides, in the end, Michelle never even went out with me.