An Endorsement of Ron Paul

One of the regular commenters on Political Realities left a comment last night, in which he asked the question, “wherefore art thou, mr.Ron Paul 2012 jackson”. To be honest, I didn’t work on Friday because I took my wife for a medical test and was rather busy with our granddaughter. I was home all weekend and was keeping tabs on the blog, but I felt very little inclination to write. This campaign has already worn me out, listening to very nasty debates, which are more akin to brawling matches, without physical punches, than a real debate. Romney and Perry incessantly attack each other. Herman Cain is constantly on the defense of his 9-9-9 plan. Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum are attacking anyone when they think it can score them more face time in the debates. Newt Gingrich is clearly the best debater of the bunch, but his baggage is like a cement block around his neck. Ron Paul is seldom asked a question, only when the moderator thinks it may elicit a response that will reinforce his reputation for being a kook.

I have been accused of being a very stubborn individual, especially when I think I am right. For weeks, even months, I have been watching the current political campaign unfold and my opinion has been swayed more than once. I started off by taking a close look at Ron Paul, much closer than I ever had before. I learned that he wasn’t just a crazy Representative from Texas, that he was very astute on economic issues. His foreign policy stance left a little to be desired and that seems to be where most people fall out with him. In fact, that is where he lost me, when he seemed to be blaming America for what happened on 9/11. That didn’t sit well with me.

Fast forward to Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain. I liked all three of them, although it seemed pretty clear that Rick Perry was the only one of the trio who had the money to go the distance. Mr. Cain dispelled part of that notion, as he surged to the forefront of the pack and it began to look as if we may have a non-establishment nominee, ie. someone other than Mitt Romney, after all. Of course, the attacks began in earnest, with all of the candidates ganging up on Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. Michelle Bachmann even went so far as to attack Cain on his position on abortion, even though I thought he laid it out rather accurately. I even received an email from Rick Santorum, in which he attacked Cain on abortion and asked me to donate at least $25 to his campaign. All in an effort to make sure the voters knew he was the only one that was really standing up for the rights of the unborn.

Going back to Ron Paul, there are a few things that keep drawing me back to the man. Clearly, he knows his economics. When you look at the battles he has been fighting in Congress, and look at the predictions he has made in the past, you will find that he knows what he is talking about. He predicted the housing crisis and he knew it’s real cause was government intervention in the market. He is the only candidate who has consistently stood up for the rights and liberties of individual Americans. Do I still disagree with some portions of his proposed foreign policy? Yes, I do. I have, however, came to the conclusion that those differences pale in comparison to the economic issues that our country is facing. For that reason, I have decided to endorse Ron Paul for President.

I am fully aware that this may cause me to lose a portion of the traffic I see on Political Realities. I suppose I am okay with that, but before you write me off completely, I would urge you to read a post by John Carey at Sentry Journal. It may enlighten you as to some of the reasons why we are supporting Ron Paul and at the very least, it will show you that not all supporters of Ron Paul are worthy of the derogatory terms that many use against us. Not all of us are Paultards, but instead are Americans concerned about the future of our country. All I ask is for you to take that into consideration.

About LD Jackson

LD Jackson has written 2038 posts in this blog.

Founder and author of the political and news commentary blog Political Realities. I have always loved to write, but never have I felt my writing was more important than in this present day. If I have changed one mind or impressed one American about the direction our country is headed, then I will consider my endeavors a success. I take the tag line on this blog very seriously. Above all else, in search of the truth.

In Case You Missed It...

124 comments to An Endorsement of Ron Paul

  • The scariest thing about Ron Paul is his followers (Not you, but the nutty ones), but I guess he can’t be blamed for that.

    Loony lefties hear him talking about 9/11 and assume he’s a troofer so they follow him, hoping for pot to be made legal.

    Having said that, I understand your position. Ron Paul is the only candidate with a comprehensive economic plan. And it is based upon harsh reality. I’m giving him another look myself.

    • He certainly does have what I would consider a “fringe” following. Some of us are more concerned about the economic issues, but there are some who are following him for the reasons you mentioned. I hope we can stay from the “fringe” and discuss what it is going to take to get our country back on track.

      • Chris McGraw

        We’re not all loony tunes conspiracy nuts :) Paul attracts those types of supporters because they feel they can trust him, which I think is true, but the vast majority of his supporters are rational, concerned citizens (as is he).

        I’m happy to see more people get behind the only candidate that seems to be worth supporting, whatever their reasons. The debt and federal government overreach we are experiencing today has got to be reigned in, and fast.

    • Ruchir Bhatt

      I am proud Paultard, Paulite, Paulofreak, etc. Dr. Paul talks about blowback when he is talking about 9/11. He is as sympathetic to the lives lost on that day like any of us, but he says that we do not get attacked because we are rich and free ( Hong Kong, Singapore, China, Brazil (to an extent), etc) can also be termed rich free and prosperous and all the freedoms obeyed women there as they are here then why are there no attacks against them?
      Why does suicide terrorism happen only in certain places? The core reason is Occupation. There are bad people in the world performing extremely heinous crimes, but the constitution does not authorize President to go after every one of them unless and until there is a war declared by the CONGRESS or an authority given by the CONGRESS. He probably does not mind going to war against mars, if congress declares it. So, please disagree with Ron Paul and do not just write him off for the wrong reasons. And the 9/11 conspiracy, there are some valid questions that are unanswered by the government. ASK QUESTIONS, DO NOT JUST ROLL OVER when the government tells you to. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin fiasco?

      • Thanks for stopping by and commenting on Political Realities.

        Concerning Ron Paul’s comments on 9/11, a lot of that was construed out of context, to be sure. He does have a point, in that we are not the policemen of the world. Or at least, we should not be. Paul wants us to follow the Constitution and if we would follow his advice, our country would be much better for the effort.

        As for 9/11, the only conspiracy was the one to commit murder and it was perpetrated by the hijackers who commandeered the planes. I DO NOT believe our government had a hand in orchestrating that tragedy. I can’t make it any plainer than that.

        • bondservant

          Hi LD – Dr Paul’s position is the same as yours… the US govt didn’t have a hand in the attacks. What he has said is that a flawed US foreign policy implemented by a few people in power have made us a target. Very different than “blaming Americans.”

          If my 6-year old starts bothering his 9-year old brother, sooner or later the 9-year old is likely to hit back. Is the 9-year old wrong for hitting him? Yes. But that’s not the whole story. Just as it isn’t with our foreign policy. Those that attack us continue to tells us why – because we are in their land.

          We create many of our own problems by ignoring the warnings of our founding fathers to “avoid entangling alliances” while being friends and trading with as many as possible.

          And – back to the economics of it all – we can’t afford to be the police of the world. Thanks!

      • Sam Geoghegan

        True….except for the 9/11 conspiracy.

        What most foreign interventionists don’t grasp is the sheer incongruousness of the U.S leviathan military spending and post 9/11 security measures -which infringe on personal freedoms, and yet despite this, it can’t prevent an amateur terrorist, with crude bomb making skills, from entering its shores, or worst still, attacking from within. Not to mention the fact the the U.S depletes trillions in wealth and resources on empire building (sorry-I meant defending American exceptionalism) in basically what can be described as third world countries. -That’s called losing.
        I think Rick Santorum said it best when he echoed the ethos of every post conservative American in denial. -‘They hate us for our freedom’

        I used to believe that myself and so did Mr Tom Woods apparently.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp5hMiTS2dg

  • Actually the way Cain crafted his abortion statement it was very much a pro-choice argument. It was a gotcha question but he should have answered more clearly.

    I can understand you supporting Paul but I am most aligned with Rick Santorum so I will continue to support him. I believe that he is the one person in the race who can bring back God, morality, religious freedom, and freedom in general in order to save this country. Plus he has a great economic plan which will boost our economy immensely. He’s worked with the Democrats to reform welfare and pass other pieces of legislation and I believe Paul is way too idealistic in a lot of ways. Some of his idealism is good but I am just afraid of what his idealism may cause in the next election, in 2016.

    • I agree with you on Cain’s answer to the abortion question.

      You raise a good point about Ron Paul. He does have a tendency to see things very much in black and white, with not much blurring around the edges. That’s a good thing, I believe, but many people may not consider it to be so.

      • R Morales

        Hi I too discovered Ron Paul recently (along with Austrian Economics) and he is the only candidate I have ever given money to. Now to comment on this thread… To me it seems that Dr Paul is black and white on issues because he always looks to maximum individual freedom and personal responsibility so and his policies are consistent to those principals. Personally I do not look to government for my morality, as Mr Santorum may want, but rather to my religion. Government should protect people’s life, liberty and property and as Fredric Bastiat pointed out, socialist confuse government with society.

    • FedupExpression

      Teresa,

      It would be my opinion that you’d better get used to Ron Paul’s idealism. The Republican party, as we have known it as a relative rubber-stamp for the Neo-Conservative agenda is dead. For the very reasons Mr. Jackson cites…as well as for the “fringe” reasons from which he would like to build an insulate moat of disassociation…many have awoken to their own folly and have decided to “opt out” of the Republican trajectory towards…(insert name like “fascism”here)

      the Republican party now has 13-15% of it’s active base permanently off the reservation and hiding in the insurrection mountains. The republican party, in it’s current state, and in trying to marginalize Paul are alienating his supporters for good. Once one comes to a new understanding of what we see around us, and once one accepts Dr. Paul’s “idealism”, they will never return to “lesser evil” voting. You have seen the start of a revolution of the mind and it has only just begun. The current Republican platform and leadership agenda will never again win a National election. As I said…get used to Paul’s “idealism” as it is mostly stark reality.

    • Stephanie

      Paul has been accused of being idealistic, but you have to give it to the man, his ideals would have been far better than his predictions he warned us about, which we are facing now.

      • That is true, Stephanie. We should have been listening to him sooner.

      • Wonsdor Ung

        Paul may be accused of being idealistic, but aren’t we all?

        Believing in the status quo is an ideal…

        It’s strange when it has been proven already that socialism does not work in theory but often implemented. Yet liberty and freedom and free markets do work in theory but never implemented.

        I’m from Australia and I am supporting Ron Paul for 2012.

        I know of no other politician that has had the same intercontinental appeal as Paul. His worldwide followers would number in the millions.

        • Joe

          Obama did, but it was a sham. I don’t suspect that we will be seeing Ron Paul addressing a crowd of Germans in the same place Hitler made his great nationalist speeches anytime soon. Paul’s message is a different message that is tailored to American philosophy which he feels is pure hearted. This philosophy spreads by knowledge of the benefits, even if the benefits (or lack there of) might yeild results you didn’t intend. But, ultimately his entire message is about perserving what we have for so long fought for which is subliminally slipping away. Obama’s message was always very hooray me, and then they gave him a peace prize. I think they should take it back. I also believe that if Paul gained traction with his message, he would actually deserve a Nobel.

          What could we gain from a less militaristing push in the world and more trade, and less foreign aid?? Open trade with our southern neighbors, especially cuba to open their doors and help their population become prosperous. A less antagonistic relationship with middle eastern nations so that once again their populations can thrive by market not military centered economies. People who want to trade with us will deny the fanatism that encourages isolationism. Maybe i am just hitting my peace pipe too hard, but I really believe this. And I think Paul is the only candidate to have this idea.

          I think in the end it will be better to be on the right side of the moral fence, and I don’t currently think we are there.

    • Nelson

      I believe that Ron Paul’s idealism that we need to balance our budget now preferable to the Dick Cheney’s idealism that “deficits don’t matter”. I also believe that Paul’s idealism that our troops would better protect our borders here at home rather than abroad preferable to the Woodrow Wilson’s idealism of making the world safe for democracy. I also prefer Paul’s idealism that Congress should have a say in our Foreign Policy rather than Obama’s idealism that the executive has the authority to interfere in countries like Libya and Uganda. Most of all, I prefer Paul’s idealism in regards to respect for the rule of law. Most of the problems with our federal government are a direct result of failure to follow the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn’t authorize something then you have two choices, amend the Constitution (yes it’s tough to do so, it’s suppose to be tough) or you take it up at the state level. As much as Ron Paul would like to slash programs and budgets, he would still follow the rule of law and work with Congress to accomplish his objectives. As president, I believe he will be an excellent teacher by words and deeds of how the system was intended to work.

  • Why do you think anyone would write you off for supporting Ron Paul? I think many of us would love to see Ron Paul run, we are just under no delusions that he’ll have a shot at winning.

    I feel as though the Democrats have done a good job at making people fear the absence of government, and since Ron Paul represents a significant reduction in government presence it’s no wonder that people think he’s a kook.

    The thing is that I think Ron Paul has some really good ideas about economics. I’ve watched some youtube videos of him explaining his ideas, and although I’m no expert on economics, the things he says make a lot of sense. But the fact remains that his foreign policy borders on being isolationist.

    I’d love to just be able to tend to our own garden, but in this day and age that’s a near impossibility for America. There are too many people that hate us and too many that depend on us for America to be able to just widthdrawl at the scale he’s suggesting.

    • Just to clarify, Jack. It wasn’t you or some of the other regulars I was worried about.

    • Calvin

      I’d just like to point out that there is a very clear difference and fine line between isolationism and non-interventionism

      A pretty good example is

      Isolationism = North Korea
      Non-interventionism = Switzerland

      Even Osama Laden said he would lure is into foreign lands to beat us in war, we are playing right into the hands of the ‘enemy’.

    • Ruchir Bhatt

      He is for trade and friendship with all including Cuba. Once goods/services cross the borders, armies don’t. Dr. Paul wants to treat every country like we treat Canada. I know it is a difficult thing to swallow considering some of the EVIL people out there. But then again Coca Cola, for example, reaches more people than United Nations. But if I talk to you with an intention to establish trade or atleast not hurt you, you are less likely to go on the offensive against me.
      Secondly, we have more weapons than the rest of the world can afford and we should use that for defense not proding and probing everyone at the airport.

    • Milos Mircetic

      Hi

      I thought I might share a point of view that not many of you have since you are Americans. I am a Serb living in Sweden (in a city with 190 nationalities) and for a long time I hated America for many reasons and 80% of my friends do too. It took me some research to stop hating America because I realised it is not the American people the world hates, it is your goverments interventionist policies for the past 60 years. EVERY single person I have ever talked with about America hates your country simply and only because of your goverments aggressive nature.

      That is the reason why Ron Paul is the only candidate that has support in the WORLD not only in America. I am not exaggerating when I say that people across the world pray that you will come to your senses and elect Ron Paul.

      Until someone as Dr. Paul gets elected the entire world will live in tyranny. There is no point in rebelling against a dictator when he can just pick up his phone and get aid from the CIA.

      An example is my home country of Serbia. People expected it to be a better place without Milosevic but instead it is at least 10 times worse. Now instead of a CIA puppet president we have a IMF/World bank puppet goverment that sold and keeps selling the productive capacity of the country at ridiculous discount prices to their buddies. It is like this in the entire world. Not until you fix the problem of the FED which keeps this perpetual tyranny of the world in motion we will not have world peace, and the only person you can trust to do just that is Ron Paul.

      Trust me if America followed its excellent constitution and simply apologized to the world, many if not all would accept the apology.

      Thank you for reading and I hope this brings some clarity to you.
      .

  • Welcome aboard, Larry. I finally took the plunge on Paul a couple of weeks ago for exactly the same reasons you did. The economic crisis facing us far out weighs anything else in the near future. Several candidate have a more or less understanding of the problems with our fiscal policies. But, Ron Paul is the only candidate that also understands the critical role played by our monetary policies and the devastating role of the Fed. I did lose a follower or two and that saddens me, but I feel strongly that we desperately need someone at the helm that knows what must be done on both the fiscal and the monetary fronts.

    • Thanks, Jim. I believe Ron Paul not only understands what has happened to bring our country to this point, but he is also willing to take the steps necessary to right our path. He has to know many of his proposals, if he were to be elected, would be very unpopular with a great number of people, but he is willing to brave that anger. He sees it as that important.

  • KP

    I read all kinds of blogs for a few reasons:

    1) they are an opportunity for me to learn from some bright people who voice their opinions and share facts

    2) they are an opportunity to question or agree with opinions or ‘facts’ of authors and posters

    3) blogs offer an opportunity to sway opinion by pointing out what each of us might consider a ‘blind spot’

    If a reader leaves a blog because he or she doesn’t agree with your opinion on a candidate the reader has likely stopped trying to learn, sway opinion and/or question your opinion. That sounds rather boring!

  • tim

    This is my first time on this blog, and I, like many others, probably came here because of this article. I will likely come back, so to say you will lose readers may not be accurate. In fact, you may gain a few.

    I would like to comment on Ron Paul’s foreign policy. While I understand the sentiment many Americans have when they hear that Paul stated it was America’s doing that led to 9/11; research, knowledge and true information has me agreeing 100% with Dr. Paul on this issue.

    Anyone who has done a great deal of research into our past foreign affairs and what we have done around the world will likely come to the same conclusion. It was our meddling over the course of the past half a decade that led to the 9/11 attacks, just as our decade-long wars in the Middle East have created more enemies for America.

    While none of us want to take responsibility for 9/11, ‘we have to be honest with ourselves’… it was not the American people that invited the attacks, but it was without a doubt America’s foreign policy and corrupt global intervention that did. Just take a look at our previous relationships with bin Laden, Hussein and Ghadaffi.

    • First of all, I want to thank you for commenting on Political Realities. I really appreciate you taking the time to do so.

      Concerning Ron Paul’s foreign policy, I was under the impression for a long time that he was an isolationist, but after looking a little closer at what he has said, I find that he really isn’t. I do believe that as President, he would attempt to follow the Constitution as closely as possible, and that would include any foreign policy decisions he would make. To be sure, the world we live in is a very global world. It seems that so many issues and events are intertwined, even if they are on the other side of the world. I suspect Ron Paul would disappoint a great number of people when he backed our country out of the many places we are now intervening in. I am sure it would be an unpopular move, but it would no doubt benefit our country in the long run.

      • Carrie

        I agree wholeheartedly. We desperately need to return to our Constitutional roots and untangle ourselves from every corner of the globe. It’s high time for Americans to take a step back and reflect on what our role should be, and whether it supports our true principles. We have strayed so far away, that it’s scary.

      • FedupExpression

        Mr. Jackson,

        We have an extremely long history of nefarious activities in other countries. John Perkins “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” outline his involvement in many things that went on in South America…all basically in support of Smedley Butler’s pamphlet.

        I have asked many this question… “What assets or interests do you have over seas that you somehow feel the right to make a claim on my son’s life to go forth and defend them? The answer is always…none.

        If corporations, be they energy, mining or other…want to invest in volatile places and fund strong men to support their efforts, then they can accept the risk involved in such activity without the involvement of my loved one’s blood.

        How the hell did we get here?

  • tim

    Sorry, I must comment once more on Dr. Paul’s foreign policy.

    Anyone who refers to his foreign policy as isolationism really should do some more research on what exactly Dr. Paul is saying. He is far from an isolationist.

    Just as Dr. Paul is right (and has been for a long time) on the economy and other issues, I believe he is also right on foreign policy.

    How can you say he is an isolationist? Dr. Paul has stated that he wants to bring the troops home to spend their money here and protect our borders. He also stated that rather than bombing all these countries we should open up to them, talk to them, make peace and trade with them… this is faaaar from isolationism.

    Just as those 10 years ago criticized me for ‘not supporting the troops’ when I opposed the wars, the very same mindset accuses Dr. Paul of being an isolationist. Please see this for the rhetoric it really is… because it certainly is not true.

    • Stephanie

      And to add to your comment, which I agree with, Paul did vote to authorize the president to go after Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks. He did not, however, support the war with Iraq because he knew they were not involved in 9/11 and had not threatened us. He does follow the constitution and would do all he need to protect us from “imminent” danger and would declare war if it were warranted. Our current president is beginning wars with no congressional support and congress is letting him. He is making us weaker.

      One more thing, Ron Paul never blamed America for the attacks on 9/11. He blamed our policies of aggressive interventionism and harsh sanctions. Sanctions rarely hurt leaders, they hurt innocent people. And foreign aid rarely helps poor people, it usually helps rich leaders of poor countries. Anyone who takes the time and shows Ron Paul the respect to actually read his position on defense will have a much better understanding of why he takes his position.

      Thank you for your endorsement for Dr. Paul!

      • I have came to the same conclusion, Stephanie. We send a ton of money to other countries as “foreign aid” and I can’t see that it has helped those countries or us. We would do well to cut off the aid, especially to the countries who are not friendly to us and to focus those efforts elsewhere.

        You make a very good point about who really gets hurt with sanctions and who the money really helps. I wish those who in the position of making those decisions could understand the concept and take steps to change our policies. Our country would be better for it.

        • Jericho

          @LD,

          The same type of sanctions that stemmed from the ‘Treaty of Versailles’ led to the rise of Hitler. Economic sanctions have always created fertile ground for totalitarian regimes.

      • Jericho

        @stephanie,

        marry me

        thank you.

  • I’ll bet you weren’t expecting a NASCAR reference in the comments,but here goes.In yesterday’s race,we saw many drivers left with a bad taste in their mouth.The Ford drivers had agreed upon a pact to only help out other Ford drivers.This left some drivers telling their partners on the track that they would be there to help them “push”,yet in the end they abandoned them due to the pact (sorry if your not into NASCAR but drafting requires a partner if you want to win).It left nearly all of them not feeling good about it because they had to “conform” rather than do whatever they could to win.

    Bloggers both left and right get hooked into this as well.Ron Paul doesn’t fit neatly into the box and therefore must be shunned if you’re a redmeat blogger.You are supposed to participate in the debate process,yet fall into line and get behind Romney when he gets the nomination.John McCain anyone?

    I expect that Paul can’t win the nomination and will end up running as an independent if he wishes to pursue it.Kudos to you and others who refuse to toe the line and are picking the candidate they see as the best as relating to our most pressing issues rather than the defacto nominee.

    • Well, I really know next to nothing about NASCAR, but I understand exactly the point you are trying to make. Given the fact that he is swimming upstream against a very strong establishment current, Ron Paul may not have a chance to win the nomination. Since I really don’t care to have Romney shoved down my throat like John McCain was in 2008, then I choose to support the candidate who is at least standing up to the establishment and telling the truth, even if it does hurt. I figure if enough of us stand with him, maybe he will have more of a chance.

  • I like RP too, Larry. We need to remember that we still have a LONG way to go before the general campaign. In the meantime, Obama is doing a fine job running against himself, what with the 9.1% unemployment and his pleas for another half a trillion dollars in spending.

    During primary season, we can afford the luxury of exclusively idealogical support. From that perspective, here are my choices in order:

    1) Ron Paul
    2) Michele Bachmann
    3) Herman Cain
    4) Rick Santorum
    5) Newt Gingrich
    6) Rick Perry
    7) Mitt Romney
    8) Huntsman

    In the #3, 4, and 5 slots there may be some wiggle room, but I think that’s pretty close.

    BUT – Ron Paul could easily lose to BO and the aforementioned foreign policy issues. Newt Gingrich is unelectable. Huntsman is a liberal. Rick Santorum won’t drop the SoCon issues. Herman Cain has no foreign policy experience (did you see him on O’Reilly? Uggh). Perry has a geriatric level of energy. Romney has Romneycare.

    They’ve all got problems…Once primary season is over, we’ve got to get behind whoever the nominee is and make sure Obama is defeated soundly – think a Reagan trouncing.,,

    • I know this post is about Ron Paul, but I couldn’t help but laugh at your description of Rick Perry’s level of energy. It fits him perfectly.

    • Stephanie Foster

      I would like to say that I do not believe Ron Paul would easily lose to BO and here is why:

      1. There are many (including me) who supported BO 4 years ago because we thought he would end the wars, increase transparency in government, and be “for the people” and not “for the corporations.” Naive, I know, since much of his money came from bankers and wall street, but I believed in the “hopey changey” message. Now, we are looking for that still and Ron Paul will deliver.

      2. Ron Paul does well with swing voters. In recent polls he gains more support from Independents and 3rd party voters than any other GOP and even more than Obama.

      3. His support is much stronger and wider than the polls show. Many of the polls, such as Rasmussen, call “likely Republican voters” at home. Most calls are done to landlines. Since we know that Ron Paul’s support is strong with younger voters, this will not likely include them since MOST young people no longer have landlines. Plus, the likely Republican voter is based on those who vote regularly, especially in primary races. This will not include those who rarely vote (apathetic voters), or who have recently switched parties to vote for Ron Paul (including my husband and me).

      4. Ron Paul has shown in Straw Polls, which he has won more than any other candidate, that he can get his supporters to get out of their house to support him. Isn’t that the point, which candidate can get the most voters to the polls on election day? Plus, more people have been willing to shell out their hard earned cash for Ron Paul by donating to his campaign than for any other candidate. He had 4 times more donors in Q3 than either Perry or Romney. True, they earned more than him because they had more people donate the max, but I’d take 100,000 small donations over 25,000 large donations any day, because more donors means more voters.

      If we would all just vote for the man who can help us the most, rather than who the corporate-owned media tells us is the front-runner, we would be in great shape!

  • I am still undecided, but leading towards Santorum. I do like Ron Paul for his economic policies and his stance on the constitution and liberty but I still have a problem with the isolationism because I think he takes it too far. But I still haven’t ruled him out.

    • I have a lot of respect for Rick Santorum. He has a tendency to stress the social issues a lot, which I don’t have a problem with, but I do wish he would focus more on the economic issues. I think he would find it would help him with the voters.

    • bill

      ‘isolationism’ is a fear mongering political buzz-word. it has never been the official policy of any
      administration, much less those that the founders served in.

      the closest we’ve come to ‘economic’ isolation was the smoot-hawley act; which cut our import/export
      revenue in half and that most economists agree, along with the libby-owens-ford stock pool ‘short-
      sell’ debacle, precipitated the great depression.

      and the united states has never embraced an ‘isolationist’ foreign policy.

      as long ago as 1816 jefferson and adams promoted expansion of our naval capacity that allowed
      armed and armored u.s. frigates to operate freely in the mediterranean. their purpose was to
      ‘protect’ our interests and those of our allies. quoting mr. jefferson:”We ought to begin a naval power,
      if we mean to carry on our commerce.”

      article one; clauses 11 thru 14 of the constitution allow congress to ‘provide for and maintain’ armies
      to defend our sovereign borders and our natl. interest.

      i don’t believe mr. paul, or any politician, would challenge 235 years of american history and run for
      the office of president on a platform of ‘isolationism’

      non-interventionism however, is a different matter and perhaps the subject of future debate…b

      • If I understand Ron Paul’s foreign policy stance, it is exactly that, non-interventionism. He especially despises our attempts to meddle in the affairs of other nations.

      • Stephanie

        the key points of Paul’s non-Interventionist foreign policy are to build relationships with other countries through trade, avoid entangling alliances and only go to war when imminent threat occurs.

        Our current policies fight with, then against terrorists, give aid to our friends and our enemies, and benefit the military industrial complex much more than the people of the USA. Will kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in an attempt to spread peach and Democracy with Drones.

        Not to mention what it is doing to us financially. I hope more people will look into Ron Paul and consider that the greatest threat to our national security is the fall of our currency as the currency of oil. If not ours, then who’s?

  • Anyone who would no longer visit or post because of this article shouldn’t be coming here anyway. I respect you endorsement but just can’t vote for the guy. He might be the voice we hear in the back of our head telling us what’s right but I just don’t think he would be the right choice… mainly his foreign policy and because he’s an all-or-nothing kind of guy. I would like to see him as VP though.

    I do find it interesting you support him because you seem to be less Libertarian than he, but it takes all kinds to make a horse race.

    • Honestly, Harrison, I have already been taken off the blog roll of one blogger.

      Ron Paul does seem like an all-or-nothing kind of guy and that could very well hurt him. As for me being less Libertarian than he is, that may very well be true. I just think the economic issues outweigh everything else in the current political climate.

      • Really? Wow that is insane. I agree the country is going down in flames… I guess it just depends how fast it happens.

        Gaffes and all I’m going with Cain because I must be a racist.

        • I thought it was crazy, but so be it.

          If Cain wins the nomination, I will gladly pull the lever for him and not feel bad at all.

          • bill

            ” I just think the economic issues outweigh everything else in the current political climate”

            some notions are transcendent over all human history mr. jackson.

            money procures power and power insures choice; i choose liberty…b

          • Lars

            Before you choose to support Cain I would urge you to look into the Federal Reserve. If you have the time I can recommend the book “The Creature from Jekyll Island”.

            Cain was the Chairman of the Kansas Fed and is as much of an insider as they come. The fact that he is portrayed as an outsider by the media shows more about the media than it does of Mr. Cain. Investigate and learn.

  • You wont’ be losing any readers LD. Now, if you said you were going with Obama you might lose all your readers. I’m not worried about that though, because I know that would never happen.

  • CAFM

    Mr. Jackson,

    It is a good thing that you have decided to endorse Dr. Paul. He may well be the last great statesman left in Washington, as well as the last honest politician. He is unafraid to tell the truth and unafraid to defend the Constitution. He has the record to prove that.

    In so far as your concerns about rhetoric and debate, I believe you will find, as I have found, that at least on the internet, people who support and defend Dr. Paul with their comments on article after article that we encounter online, provide the best and most cogent and informed ideas and arguments to those who attempt to marginalize and belittle our candidate. We always deal in facts and legitimate information, while those who oppose Dr. Paul are inclined to name call or otherwise be dismissive with not a single rational argument.

    Glad you have indicated your own good common sense Sir, by endorsing the one man in the race who is serious about reducing our indebtedness and the one man who has the fortitude to do what he promises. He is no shrinking violet to be manipulated as many politicians are. Thank you for choosing Dr. Paul.

    • Thanks for commenting on Political Realities. In the coming days (when I get the time), I intend to write a more detailed post about Ron Paul and the position he takes on foreign policy. I would like to explain the difference between his non-interventionist stance and real isolationism. There really is a difference, as I have come to see.

    • FedupExpression

      To be fair and honest about it, I have been known to treat others in the same manner as they are treating me and have devolved into name calling as well. While education and discussion is my desire, it ain’t always so easy to engage without an emotional defensive outburst now and then..especially in the face of condescending meme. After all, I’m not Ron Paul and could never be…

  • Thanks for the mention Larry. Great post and I want to thank you for keeping an open mind. Supporting Ron Paul doesn’t make you a less of a conservative. As I said Ron Paul is the only candidate who is talking about liberty and it will be liberty that saves us. The founders understood this and so does Ron Paul. How can you have a free-market when the citizens driving the free-market have no liberty…the answer is you can’t. You know where I stand. I stand with liberty my friend.

  • Perpetual war for perpetual peace. Seems kinda like an oxy moron idea to me.

    I’d be just fine phasing out the FED, the unconstitutional wars, departments that have little to no oversight that enable projects like “Operation Fast and Furious,” and who knows what other kind of otherwise illegal practices since, after all, we are supposed to be a nation with the rule of law.

    What the Ron Paul critics fail to realize is that the FED enables all deficit and inflationary policies and even the funding of military actions. There lies my extreme caution with Cain. Crafted by none other than the heavy hitting bankers themselves to squash Western competition the 1913 Federal Reserve Act has failed it’s stated mission and after it’s passage the signing president wrote a statement full of woe and regret for signing it into law basically admitting that he sold us out. JFK was killed shortly after threatening it’s existence.

    There would be many a peaceful nation if there were no central banking.

    The Federal War on Drugs, well has it really worked?
    I have three kids of my own and I have zero intention of allowing them access or to use drugs like marijuana or anything else, but they would be able to get it anyway, even here in Utah where marijuana is a felony. Let the states handle it.

    • Obviously, there are a lot of areas the federal government has taken over that really belong to the states. That seems to be a growing trend that is going to be very difficult to reverse. Having Ron Paul in office would help do that.

      Considering the size and scope of our government, is it any wonder there is so much fraud, waste, and lack of oversight? Our constitutional Republic is unable to function as it was designed and the size of the bureaucracy in Washington contributes greatly to that failure.

      • Lars

        Well said. The question I would like us to ask ourselves is this. Can we solve any other problems before we solve this problem? Ron Paul is often portrayed as black or white but I believe nothing could be further from the truth. Is it black or white to demand that Washington follows the law (the Constitution)? Is it black or white to demand to balance the budget?

        If we did that in our private lives we would be put in prison or go bankrupt. Is it black or white to demand the same from our elected officials that apply to us?

  • Thank you for your wonderful essay! Here is a song for you called “Ron Paul Free”. I hope you will enjoy it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wdmP8PRThQ

  • bill

    there is a common lament that surfaces from time to time in conservative dialogue; usually when dire events
    and/or circumstance are so obvious that even the media cannot properly assuage public opinion.
    and it’s worth repeating to make a point:

    “the founding fathers would turn over in their graves if they knew what this administration was doing.”

    the implication, of course, is that we have diverged so far legislatively and policy-wise from their conception
    of a ‘republic'; that folks like madison and jefferson would no longer recognize our present ‘constitutional’ logic.
    and that’s as far as it goes; another round of drinks are called for and everyone is comforted in their particular
    political camaraderie.

    i’d like to posit the opposite of that lament. to wit; that ‘we the people’ have become so enamoured of the ‘gifts’
    of large government; that we have become ‘lazy’. we are un-willing or more likely un-concerned to contribute to
    the political process; complacent to benefit from the ‘american dream’ without having to pay the cost, and most
    importantly, lax in our morality.

    and so we are comfortable with the present; and reluctant to change our acquired ‘habits’, even if that choice
    entails an incremental loss of our liberty. in other words; we would ‘turn over’ in our future graves, if confronted
    with the prospect of drastically changing our present reality to the one that our founders envisioned.

    mr. paul is most likely un-electable in 2012. but i commend mr. jackson for his endorsement, it mirrors mine.
    however the media (whom i forgive because they have to make a profit) and the general electorate (whom i do ‘not’ forgive) might once again foist upon america a ‘place-holder'; someone who will make us feel good for awhile.

    i’m as aware of the reality of ‘politics’ as most and i can live with the partisan bickering and ideological
    stances that always provide a healthy dynamic to the process. what saddens me is the almost universal
    vitriol directed at a ‘constitutionalist’ like mr.paul. he is not the ‘demon’ that even conservatives despise;
    he’s just a voice reaching out for thirty years saying hey: “here’s what our constitution says and allows.” …

  • Brian

    Mr. Jackson,

    Welcome to the party. First, any concern about losing readers is unfounded; my bet is that you’ll gain them. To the point, I am a combat vet who was turned on to Ron Paul during the debates in ’07. I was very reluctant at first, especially with his stance on the war. I come from a very conservative and military background, with pride in my service. I saw anyone who advocated for peace as traitors to their country. But the more I heard Ron Paul, and researched the ideas that he espouses, I realized that the most patriotic position to take is that of peace. Especially since then, seeing men and women come home with our bodies and minds shattered. I now see the whole idea as kings sending their pawns off to do their bidding, and it makes me ill. Ron Paul is the only one on the stage proposing to end this.

    • Thanks for taking the time to comment on Political Realities. I want you to know that I appreciate your service to our country. The longer I look at the wars we are involved in, the more I realize how little business we really have being involved in some of them. That is exactly what Ron Paul has been saying for years and he is right.

  • Lars

    Thank you LD for supporting Ron Paul. I was a little sad to read what I thought sounded like an excuse for supporting Ron Paul, however that just makes me even happier that you chose to take what must have been a brave step to come out and make this endorsement. It is not easy to risk being called a kook by once pears and readers.

    I came to this blog (for the first time I think) due to a link from a Ron Paul site I visit daily. I found Ron Paul in 2007 and have been a supporter ever since. To me he is the only candidate of either party who can rescue this country. It sounds dramatic but there is no doubt in mind that is the truth. I guess that makes me a kook and if that’s the case I take it as a compliment.

    There is so much to learn when one takes the step out of the media and government controlled propaganda. I will not go into this here, but I can assure you I believe in many things most on this blog will probably consider insane. The truth to me is that the generally accepted “wisdom” is nothing short of insanity, e.g. that spending, borrowing and debt will make us rich and that starting wars all over the world will make us safe and popular just to name a few.

    I will spare you any more “lecturing” from a crazy Ron Paul supporter and just wish you the best of luck on what I see as a journey to truth. I would not change my last 4 years of personal education for the world and I hope you will have a similar positive experience on your journey towards truth, peace. prosperity and happiness.

  • Philip Blumel

    Thanks for taking a stand on the prez race. We are getting close to the day when we all need to. It has been so easy to complain about them as a group, but that luxury cannot be indulged much longer as the early primary approaches.

    I know what you mean by the fringe, but that is irrelevant. Which candidate is best suited for the job in this crisis environment? I came to the same conclusion you did.

  • I respect your decision to endorse Ron Paul and I understand how you feel about getting less traffic. I have turned my blog into a Herman Cain shrine:-) Like you, I agree with Ron Paul on almost everything. I just can’t get past his position on foreign policy. I also think he needs to lighten up because he seems too angry and frustrated, which is understandable; it’s just not helpful. I will only say one more negative thing about Ron Paul and positive thing about you at the same time. What turns me off to Ron Paul most is his supporters. Most of them behave like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann have lately; but not you. You are the first Ron Paul supporter who supports him for the same reasons I would consider supporting him. You don’t attack the other candidates either, which is more than I can say for myself:-)

    As a tea party conservative, I think it’s important that we don’t let the Republican party scare us into voting against Obama rather than for someone we can actually stomache. It’s important to get to the polls and vote for congressional seats; but I’ve decided that I will not vote for Romney if he is the nominee. With that said, I respect your decision to support Ron Paul. While I believe that conservatives can only beat Romney if we consolidate our vote into one conservative candidate, who am I to say it should be Cain? I respect your choice to support Ron Paul in the presidential primary and I look forward to reading anything you write about him.

    • Thank you for your kind words, MLaChance. I appreciate your respect of my decision.

      As for me attacking the other candidates, I will follow the same tact that I followed in 2008, when I was supporting Mike Huckabee. I will write about Ron Paul and do my best to defend him against the baseless charges. If I feel the charge has merit, I will write about that as well. I take the tag line of Political Realities very seriously. I am just not comfortable attacking the rest of the field, although Mitt Romney does try my patience.

      • I don’t consider Mitt Romney a Republican. When I admitted that I have attacked Republican candidates, I wasn’t referring to Romney:-)

        When a writer holds critical thinking above his personal agenda, it makes for a much more interesting read. You do that well.

        I’m obviously a novice to blogging. Right now, I’m testing the waters and learning a lot. That may be as far as I go; but regardless, I’ve learned from your example and I appreciate it.

  • PHIL OLSON

    WELCOME ABOARD LARRY!!! I woke up in 2007 when I was a senior in college. I was a finance major and I began noticing how the things I was being taught in my textbooks didn’t match up with reality. All my keynesian socialist economic professors were teaching about the new financial paradigm in which the capital markets had plateaued and would only continue to go up. Our final project was to forecast the future direction of the American economy. I wrote about how the economy was on the brink of an imminent recession which would be triggered by debt defaults and credit contraction. I had been reading austrian economics and a book called the “Creature from Jekkyll Island” Also around that time I had recently learned about Ron Paul and started developing an alternative view of the federal reserve system. (business majors are literally taught to worship the FED) Needlesstosay I got a D+ on my research paper when the rest of the students who predicted sustainable 4% GDP growth recieved A’s. The more I learn about Ron Paul and what is happening in the world today, the more I am convinced that this man is going to achieve legendary status within America’s political history as our last great statesman. We may not all agree with him about everything, but at least we know he has a firm set of principles that have never been compromised in the last 40 years and he has kept his oath to support and defend the Consitution better than anyone in our generation. Do I think he is a little extreme? Yeah, but American has gotten itself into an extremely aweful situation which could have mitigated had Ron Paul’s advice been followed. The government is clearly out of the control and Ron Paul seems to be the lonley (correct) voice in the wilderness speaking the truth to those willing to hear. Have a great day, and I’m glad you have concluded to throw your backing behind RP 2012!

  • Ken

    Welcome to the modern enlightenment. The one thing I would like to address is the reoccurring perception that Ron Paul cannot beat Obama. In all polls done matching Republican candidates to the sitting President Ron Paul scores in a statistical dead heat (within the margin of error) with the other Republicans to show a tie with Obama.

    This cites two of the more recent ones a month old:
    http://www.redstate.com/tooncesthecat/2011/08/23/rasmussen-and-gallup-agree-ron-paul-could-beat-obama/

    That being said Ron Paul has the advantage in the race of pulling more Democrats than any other candidates. This weakens Obama drastically. Forced to have the choice of a President that you are disillusioned with or an opponent that is anti-war and anti-drug war and pro civil rights many Democrats will just stay at home (because unfortunately a lot of them just can’t pull an R lever).

    So right now Paul wins, when he gets the nomination and his issues reveal to Democrats that they have a choice that is “unmake-able” they will do just that – not make a choice and not show.

    I really think he is the Republicans best bet to beat Obama and will result in a Reagan like Democrat surge for Republicans.

  • Jim

    As someone who has admired and supported Dr. Paul since the late 70’s, all I can say is… welcome, and God bless. As you turn now to opening the minds of others, be strong in this struggle, for the cause is righteous indeed.

  • freeman

    Larry, from reading this post it seems to me that you perhaps have actually gained readers, yours truly among them. One of the comments that stands out in my mind that Ron Paul uttered was during the 2007 campaign. Someone was calling McCain to task for some of his votes and John McCain said: “You go to Washington to change Washington and Washington changes you.” at which point Ron Paul piped up and said: “It didn’t change ME!” And wouldn’t it be a refreshing change to have somebody in Washington who actually would do what he says he would do? Another great moment from the 2007 campaign was when Ron Paul went on the Jon Stewart show and Stewart said to Paul: “You appear to have consistent principled integrity. Americans don’t normally go for that.” I want to thank you for this fine essay and welcome you to the fray. I firmly do not believe that this country can survive another four years of Obama, but both sides of the aisle in Congress just seem determined to keep ramping up the spending and ramping up the debt as if this policy will never come back to haunt us.

  • Everett

    I love to here of support for ron paul from a active republican.

    I believe in the stated policies of the Republican party but left and have been Independent for more tha 30 years.
    I was and still am tired of the 2 party Rope-a-Dope of the one party system we have been under.
    I rejoined the party in 07 to vote for Ron Paul the bumper stickers are still on my cars.
    Ron Paul is a true conservative Republican, if Ron Paul does not run in 2012 I believe the Republican Party can just fold up they will have burned thier last bridge

  • adrian

    Have you seen the video of Ron Paul “predicting” 9/11?
    He was critical of Clinton for bombing the middle east, and warning that this will cause an attack here at home.
    I watched a film called “the 9/11 commission report” and even in there, it shows that they knew Clinton’s bombing would cause an attack. Apparently, the plans were known by the CIA, because the “terrorists” said that they would. It really just is that simple. CIA research proves that US presence is the MAIN (not only one), but main reason why Al Qaeda can recruit more people. There are clearly other implications, but when it comes to the united states, it is clear that we get attacked here at home whenever we attack them first. It’s an act of retaliation. Even the recent alleged “underwear bomber” said that he came to try to attack us due to the continuing of bombing of innocent lives in his “holy land”.

    I think Ron Paul’s foreign policy is not only logical, but necessary for our National Security.

    video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc

  • diana

    I would like a chance to clear up a few things.This is a very misunderstood subject with Ron Paul and also a media push that wants you to believe it. First of all Ron Paul never blamed America for the attacks of 9/11. He never claimed it as an inside job. He is merely saying that our foreign policy and foreign regime is corrupt and unconsitutional and it is an opportunity for other countries to want to attack us when we force all of our power on them without reason at times and force our presence in their own land when not needed. There is no need for us to build bases in countries. Flip flop the situation just for one minute. If you had another country(lets say China) come and plop several bases around America just because how would you feel? How you feel if everywhere you went you saw them in uniform and never knowing where this moment was your last..Better yet how would you feel if one came and sat in your house. Forcing their beliefs on you when not welcomed. Its the age old saying of do unto others as you would have them do to you. We should not be interfearing in the internal affairs of other countries. Borrowing money(increasing debt) to try to rebuild countries. Its their own country. We have our own.

  • Saul Escobar

    Well, here is another reason to not support those “top-tier” candidates: all of the supported the bailout of Wall Street! Weren’t we supposed to be against bailouts? Even the Tea Party would have a country band play a song called “Bailout” mocking those who support bailouts. But now they’re supporting the likes of Herman Cain, a banking insider and D.C. lobyist? Here is an article I found on the matter:http://blogforliberty.com/2011/10/17/hello-world/

    Hope you guys find it substantive and useful.

  • Tommy Lee

    Nice article and good to see logic!. Think you may gain more than lose!. I became aware of RP by way of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUpZhhbKUBo this video. I then stumbled upon this which explains how we got to this point http://teamlaw.org/ . Thank you

  • Many people criticize his foreign policy, which is fine. But he looks like the best bet to get our fiscal health in order. If we don’t do that, our foreign influence will be greatly reduced.

  • Mrs K

    Dear Mr. Jackson,

    Your endorsement of Ron Paul has earned you my readership, too. I have been an ardent supporter of Paul’s for years. I am not a 20 year old (50+) living in my mom’s basement with my computer and getting high. Nor am I “unpatriotic” or “un-American”. First and foremost, I am a wife, mother, grandmother, etc. I am a gainfully employed taxpayer, an officer of the GOP, and try to be a good citizen and neighbor. I have numerous family members, friends and neighbors who are also Paul supporters. Sadly, many of them are afraid that “he can’t win” because all the talking heads on TV tell them so. I think they’re getting over it, though, and plan to vote for the candidate who is the least imperfect. One that may deliver real HOPE and CHANGE.

    That being said, I know it is unnerving to be called a “kook” or “fringe”. My personal experience with Paul supporters has, for the most part, revealed them to be to be thoughtful, informed, and unanimous in their concern for the future of our beloved republic, liberty and freedom. I have read about their collective shortcomings on the Internet but haven’t actually experienced the “kookiness” with the exception of some name-calling in posts (which Dr. Paul would not stoop to and would probably feel embarrassed by). I believe that these are likely young, passionate supporters who probably did not attend finishing school. :) It is usually the opinion put forth with quiet assurance and courtesy which is more convincing than unbecoming shouting or foul language, no?

    Keep the faith and keep up the good work. Your journey is just beginning. Take heart in the knowledge that there are legions of Americans who want their country back and that we will stand for liberty. God bless.

  • chris

    Agreed. RP is the most honest one.

  • Dave Burnham

    Thank you for endorsing Ron Paul. For those of you who think he cannot win I reccomend you watch “The Awakening of a Generation” its now about page 4 on ronpaulflix.com… An excellent video about Ron Pauls grassroots support.

  • Ryan

    Larry:

    Your assessments and evaluations are so refreshing–thank you for being so publicly brave. I think it is people like you who could really help the idea of freedom and liberty again return to America.

    I am excited and interested to read your future posts regarding Paul’s foreign policy. For the last few years, I have felt extremely uncomfortable with our country’s actions in foreign lands. I desire safety, protection, and justice as much as any person in this world–I just feel that the way to ensure more of it is through persuasion, love, trade, leading by example, and by following the golden rule.

    I do believe that military action–when approved by congress and as a result of first being attacked–is necessary to protect the people and ideas we all so fervently appreciate. I supported military action subsequent to the attack on 9/11 to bring those guilty parties to justice. I am happy we have succeeded here–despite the cost.

    One academic study, undertaken by Dr. Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, has helped me to understand what Ron Paul is talking about. A short series of four lectures can be found here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HnIyClHEM

    I encourage anyone who doesn’t quite agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy to listen to this lecture. There is no advocating on behalf of those who seek to destroy us, but there is an opportunity for every American to learn about the motives of our aggressors.

    I can only hope for a future of both domestic tranquility and peace in the world–may we unite together to spread the message of peace and prosperity.

    “Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism–it is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in the short order, as our current actions most definitely will…the sad thing is, our foreign policy will change eventually, as Rome’s did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.”

    –Ron Paul

    • John Potter

      “Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism–it is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in the short order, as our current actions most definitely will…the sad thing is, our foreign policy will change eventually, as Rome’s did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.”

      -Ron Paul

      So very well put. Even a cave man like me can understand it.

  • The Ghost Of Liberty's Past

    It heartens me to see the comments here,as well as the author’s transformation.
    There is hope that the philosophy of liberty will survive.
    The enlightenment happened more than 200 years ago,we just have to re-remember it….Restore The Republic.

  • LD, There are many reasons to support Ron Paul, but not enough for me to do so – unless he wins the nomination and then I am behind him 100%. I admire Paul’s tenaciousness about constitutionality. I do not agree with him about 9/11/01.

    I know there was a time when supporting Paul was considered reason enough to drop a friendship, but it isn’t like that today. Every time Paul has run, he has advanced our thinking. He has bold ideas, simply because we have forgotten the meaning of constitutionality. Some of those idea are difficult to consider at this time in our history.

    Each of the candidates are far, far better than Barack Obama.

    • I totally respect your decision, Maggie. I think you have hit on a very important point. Some of the ideas Ron Paul has are indeed bold. With the current trend of “more government is better government”, it may be hard for the big government folks to consider what he has to say. It doesn’t make him any less right, but it does make it harder for his message to get through.

  • Nisse

    I follow the Ron Paul campaign really closely here from Sweden (Which is a fairly socialistic country compared to the US. What I really don’t understand is this talk of Ron being isolationist? Are countries not at war isonalitionists countries? Sweden have not been in a war for like 250 years, but trades with everyone and uses diplomacy when an issue occurs.

    I don’t endorse the Swedish semi-socialistic system, but keeping out of other countries internal affairs is one of the few really good policies that Sweden has. We export alot more than China, is on a friendly basis with every country in the world, and we haven’t had any real terrorist attack here ever that I am aware of.

    How did freetrade with other countries and diplomacy end up as isolationism in US politics? Beats me. Sounds like fearmongering by special interests.

  • Jeffrey Kelly

    Thank you for supporting Ron Paul, it is my hope that you Sir are the first of many enlightened Americans to do so. For Liberty and Country continue to stroke your pen upon the parchment of Freedom, Dignity, and the Truth! Ron Paul 2012!

  • Peter Keller

    I am like many others who commented here, not from the US. America over the last few decades went from one of the most loved nation, to one of the most hated nation on the earth. This is well known to anyone who are willing to open their eye. The people who shaped the direction of the country for some time (30 years) know this. The thing is that they don’t care. They argument is based on some kind of twisted Darwinian theory along the lines of natural selection, survival of the fittest, and moral principles. They advocating that someone need to rule and it is the US destiny to do this. There is a very good three parts BBC documentary on the neocon movement. You will find it on YouTube.
    It is very educational and it will show clearly the history of the neocons.
    I am following Ron Paul well before his 08 bid for the presidency. He is the only politician I ever gave money to.
    It is vey good to see the support he is getting now. The world is waking up, and people all around attracted to the idea of liberty. One of the thing I like to share, which is now coming out more and more is, that you don’t have to agree with everything Ron Paul’s says to support it. When was the last time anyone saw a politician that you agreed on everything he or she said?
    The thing is, even if you do agree with everything they say, you can be sure that they won’t do what they say.
    With Ron Paul is different. He has the voting record. He doesn’t change. There is a clear choice here, he is the only politician who we can trust. And I really hope for the sake of the USA and the world that he will be the next president. He has achieved more than I ever thought he can, by waking up the people, but surely would be good to see him leading this once great but currently misguided country.

    • Peter,

      I am interested in the fact that you are not from the United States. I knew that already from your ip address, so I am curious why you are weighing in on our election. Are you originally from America or are you just interested in what is going on? I mean no offense, I am honestly curious.

  • Beth

    It was great to read how you took the time to really look at and learn about Ron Paul. He is the best hope for our country, as he truly wants to serve. He is a much more intelligent person than he is often given credit for. Welcome to the Revolution!

  • Jonathan Peterson

    Welcome to the Revolution Larry! It does not require violence and bloodshed, just thinking minds. Ron Paul is so much more attractive, intellectually, than any of the other candidates. It’s amazing that his message is so appealing to the younger generation. One doesn’t have to have a PhD. in Economics, Foreign Relations, etc. to have common sense. His message is quite simple, ‘Do unto others, as you would have unto you” comes to mind. One might think they were at a Lady Gaga event when he shows up on college campuses. They hear the warning bells and the Paul Revere.

    We are seeing the results of a misguided ‘SuperPower’. As for all the folks out there that would complain, out of fear, about RP’s foreign policy, I would ask them this, “What in the world has caused many in the world to despise this country more than the past and present policies we have been pursuing?” There is nothing else at the forefront! Pardon me, period. It’s not as hard as people, neocons, would have it.

    We cannot, peaceably or afford-ably continue with our current policies. At this pace, our national security will be more threatened by our self induced bankruptcy than any other cause than overextending our military and our checkbook. The bankers are the enablers of this sickness and the only winners. They also could not care as to which nationality they are allowed to operate under. Loyalty to money is their only God. If anyone believes the FED, ie Central Bankers have loyalties to our country or any other, they need to realize that they could care less which country or government they are ‘supposed’ to represent. In the end of a Republic they destroy the currency, hold the gold, which is not ‘money’ according to Ben, and start up another corrupt system.

    The nation state is being destroyed, including the US to create the impression that localized governments, including the US, even though that doesn’t sound localized, end up destroying themselves from the inside, which is what appears to be happening hear, can’t survive. Therefore we need to set up a Supranational government that can tell us all how to live, create its own currency, and when that fails, not only we, but all of humanity can now share the destitution of wreckless policies and egomaniacs.

    Sorry for the long post, but it’s great to see someone break out of the propaganda cycle and think for themselves.

    BTW, I was brainwashed also into believing in the ‘Noble and Moral’ nature of our country so much that I actually voted for GW twice until finally waking up and writing in Ron Paul in 08, even knowing he wasn’t going to win, but I slept much better that night knowing I didn’t fall for the lesser of two evils.

    You will be energized and enthused and will not lose, but gain readers. Good Luck, Jonathan.

    • Thanks for stopping by, Jonathan. I have no problem with long comments. My writing skills are negligible and not very polished, but I hope I can help spread his message of liberty and responsibility in some small way.

  • Chris

    Thanks for your support of Dr. Paul, he is truly one of our last statesmen. While I can poke holes though all of the other candidates Ron’s gentlemanly nature and honesty have earned him my vote. Continuing the status quo will do nothing for our country…It truly is the time for real ideas and conviction and no one, I mean no one is offering what Dr. Paul is, and they wont because of who holds their purse strings. You say you support the military?, the military supports Ron Paul, do you think they might know something you don’t? Ron Paul has received more than twice the donations of the entire republican field from active duty military, so lets support our troops :)

    • Thanks for stopping by, Chris. I appreciate you taking the time to leave a comment.

      I have heard about the campaign donations from the military before. It should give us pause to think about why they consider him to be their candidate.

  • Abigail

    I would like to be among those who say thank you to you for your support of Dr. Paul. His message is important and applaud you for breaking away from the establishment. I think maybe why we Ronulans seem so fanatic is because we are disturbed by the status quo and the path the country is on. Once you break through the propaganda and brainwashing, it is quite obvious the erosion of our civil liberties and the dire state of our economy. We are generally intelligent and informed and reject much of what is coming out of mainstream media. So when a Paulite starts talking and we aren’t parroting what Fox or CNN is pushing, then it is too much for many people and they write us off as crazy so they don’t have to think about anything disrupting their suburban lives.
    So thank you again for putting your support out there.

  • Dpetty

    My Fellow Paultards:

    The man is ENDORSING ron paul – you dont need to attack him.

    Potheads like Dr. Paul – that doesnt make us all Potheads
    Some racists like Dr. Paul – that doesn’t make us all Racists
    Some Neocons like Dr. Paul – that doesn’t make us all Necons
    Some liberals like Dr. Paul – that doesn’t make us all liberals

    All this makes is the clarity that Liberty rings true in the hearts and minds of ALL people – we need to stand TOGETHER despite our differences (never forgetting that it’s our differences that make us stronger – gears with no friction make no movement).

    I don’t care who you are – what you believe – or why you support dr. paul: I only care that as many people as possible vote for him AND SO SHOULD YOU!

    Thanks.

  • Ricken

    I live in Australia and hope above all that you get Ron Paul to the Whitehouse. I keep hearing he is unelectable….no-one is that …..if everyone votes for him. I don’t think I have ever seen a more honest politician. His policies can only do good for the world not just USA. Yes they will be harsh, but the state you are in now requires such measures. Elect any of the others and you just keep the status quo….and it’s more of the same for another 4 years.

    I think you have made a first class endorsement Larry. If he doesn’t win the primary I think he should stand as an independant. He is romping home in the straw polls. We know the establishment will do all in their power to not let it happen……….and of course if he comes home in a close finish for the actual Presidency, should he stand, he may not win using Bush Ballot Tactics….where the other guy wins even if he doesn’t win.

    I hope for all of your sakes and ours the people of America come to their senses and elect an honest man….Mr Ron Paul.

    I tried to make a small donation to his campaign on his birthday fundraiser weekend but was unable due to not having a US postal code. Such a pity. But our thoughts and good wishes go with him.


  • Trackbacks: