Only a Liberal…

Ron Paul’s policies on upholding the constitution, for the most part, are perfect. He recognizes that the federal government has overstepped its powers drastically and wants to draw it back. I would 100% endorse Ron Paul except for the one, absolutely vital issue that he is dead wrong on: national defense.

His reasoning behind his position is rational, but not in-depth enough. His stance is its not the governments business to be defending nations across the pond; he says we should not intervene. We should not be at war unless we are attacked. Here’s an example… if you looked out your window, and saw your neighbor piling rocket launchers and rockets in a pile in the garage next to a poster that said “Death to [you],” Ron Paul would tell you its not your place to intervene unless he attacks you. This is SUICIDAL.

I REALLY like his other politics (see these videos); he makes bold statements that ignore typical knee-jerk reactions and stand up to scrutiny. He argues to get rid of the Department of Education. What a silly thing, get rid of education? No, no. Not education… the DEPARTMENT of education. He says they’ve proven themselves inefficient, citing that D.C. is the one city they’re totally in charge of, and it costs $13,000 a year per student for schools filled with guns and violence and a terrible education.

Ron Paul would defend us once we were attacked, but I fear he would allow an attack that George W. Bush, so far, has prevented, and I believe the rest of the republicans and even Hillary Clinton would most likely prevent. Close, Mr. Paul, but no cigar.

-State Senator for 8 years

-Illinois Senator for 3 years

That’s it? I knew he was inexperienced, but when I did the research, I was surprised. Before state senator, he was a community organizer, a lawyer, and a lecturer at University of Chicago. That’s it. Sorry Barack… you’re not ready yet.

Based on researching the career of Hillary Clinton, I firmly believe there is only one thing she believes in: achieving power. She is the most calculated politician I have ever seen. Now I will admit, sometimes her calculations end up on the right side of an issue. From a national defense standpoint, her calculations appear to tell her to defend the country, which is more than I can say for Ron Paul as well as all the other Democrats. But her desire to institute universal healthcare frightens me. If the success of the United States has shown anything, its that the free market breeds prosperity, and universal healthcare has been DISASTROUS everywhere it has tried. There is no logical, rational argument for it. If you have one, pitch it to me, but governments are disgustingly inefficient at it.
A blunt way of putting it is this woman appears to have no soul. I don’t say that lightly, but she is so calculated, that even though she appears to have fought for women and children her whole life, that appears to be ALL she has fought for. She seems to have had the goal of showing how compassionate she is, but has overdone it in the process. I think its wonderful that she has fought so hard and so long for women’s and children’s rights, but this country is not just made of women and children.

On the plus side, as first lady of Arkansas, she created mandatory teacher testing and state standards for curriculum and class size. She became the only first lady to have her office in the West Wing instead of the East Wing. As senator, she got $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment. She voted for the Patriot Act, as did every senator except for 1 (Feingold). She also voted for the ‘02 Iraq War Resolution, authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq, also voting against the Levin amendment, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy and would have required a separate Congressional authorization to invade Iraq. For those of you Hillary supporters, that probably surprises you, or you ignore those facts. She looked at the evidence, saw Saddam’s regime as dangerous and supported it ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. She wouldn’t even hedge her bets with the Levin amendment. What does that tell you?

Her recent xmas ad epitomizes her inability to be likable. She is shown preparing xmas gifts for America, including Universal Healthcare, alternative energy, “bring troops home” and middle class taxcuts. A director got to edit and design a commercial to make her look good, and it was a total failure. What kind of idiot thought it was a good idea to portray a presidential candidate giving handouts? By the way, how will Hillary acquire all the things she promises in that commercial? In other words where does she get the money to fund them all? Oh ya… anyone that falls for that commercial appears to believe you can get “something from nothing” (not invented by, but inspired by Thomas Sowell).

She is very good at pandering to the crazy left-wingers, but her voting record shows she is not willing to go on record hindering actions to defend this country. When she speaks, she takes both sides on many issues, especially the war, but also the drivers license issue in New York (the Edwards campaign created a devastating commercial pointing this out). I don’t think either side can trust her, and she is not qualified to be President of the United States.

Before the Bush tax cuts that the liberals so hate, the top 5% of the rich paid 56% of the total tax bill. Now they pay 60%. You would think they’d be happy, but only a liberal would turn down more money in the effort to “appear” like they are soaking the rich. Isn’t class envy great?

- The debate is NOT over. Gore and others claim the debate is over due to a “consensus” of scientists. “The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” (Naomi Oreskes, Washington Post) Ignoring the glaring “GOVERNMENTAL” part of the panel, the report is said to be a consensus of scientists because of the thousands of scientists names on the report. The problem is THEY DIDN’T SIGN IT. They were simply existing members of the “panel” and so their names were attached. Many scientists protested saying they didnt agree, and were ignored. Many left the “panel” and one sued to have his name removed. Oh, and the 3,000 panel members aren’t all scientists. Many are political appointees.
- Warming CAUSES the rise in CO2. Al Gore’s movie simply shows the correlation and implies that CO2 is the cause of the warming. His own graph shows that the CO2 follows the temperature 100 years later.

- The correlation between earth temperature and SUN ACTIVITY is stronger than the correlation between earth temperature and CO2 levels.

- CO2 levels were more than 10 TIMES what they are now during an ice age that caused mass extinction. Gore’s movie only covers the last 650,000 years. Junkscience.com - “Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO₂ levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that’s a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current ‘guesstimations’ of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO₂ suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO₂ equating to toasted planet.”

- The IPCC put all their scientist-members’ signatures on their report, and many of the scientists resigned when the Intergovernmental panel refused to remove their names.

**Image from a slide used in a british documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle.