I am going to patiently wait for E.C. to run.
 

You beat me to it!! I seriously had a to-do list, and going over my Ron Paul spiel with you over myspace was one of the things on the list! He won me over with the quote, "I'm tired of the corruption in our government." !!

My brother and I are posting signs all over Spokane.. Literally.. all over. Here's to Ron Paul 2008!
 

Merry Christmas, Emma!

And...

Now you're talkin'!!!!!

My wife and I have been hardcore Ron Paul supporters for months now. We wear Ron Paul buttons, display Ron Paul stickers on our cars, hand out Ron Paul flyers, and send Ron Paul e-mail updates to friends and family. It's been our experience that once someone knows what Ron Paul stands for they almost immediately become Ron Paul supporters. It makes me furious that the media -- including so-called conservative talk-show hosts -- have ignored him.

I liken all other candidates to the Good Cop, Bad Cop game. There's no difference between Clinton and Romney, between Giuliani and Obama, and between Edwards and Thompson. They're all "cops" behind the rhetoric. Ron Paul is the most pro-freedom, pro-Constitution, pro-American candidate who's run in decades. He's literally in a different league from all others.

My MySpace page features a couple of Ron Paul vids. His official web site (www.RonPaul2008.com) is chock-full of position papers and exciting links. His MySpace page (www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008) is also loaded with info.

Beth and I are really excited that you've become a Ron Paul person, too, Emma!!!!

We're looking forward to reading your future blog on the subject.
 

Merry Christmass to you too.I'm with Baxter at the moment.To say ive been disillusioned with the political system is an understatement. I'll check out the vid but i cant say i'm to thrilled with any of the canidates, dems or republicans.What i will do for sure is still encourage pepole (as i always do) to vote your concious. Dont let pepole jive you with statements like vote for this guy so that guy dosent get more votes. ITS FAULTY LOGIC AND ITS NOT WHAT YOUR VOTE WAS MENT FOR. Vote for the canidate YOU belive in,get others to vote.Only about half of registerd voters actually cast a ballot,and of that half slightly more than fifty percent put a president in office. What that boils down to is that 1/4 of the populace determins are nations political direction for the next four years.If we want to see real change in DC i belive we need to see a 70 to 80 percent voter turn out. So please everyone get out the vote no matter who you vote for. Our forfathers sacrificed, shed thier blood,and gave thier lives for us to have this right,dont let it be in vaine.
 

Ron Paul would be a great choice...be careful he doesn't run as a third party canidate and take away votes from the Republican nominee and put Hillary in the White House!!
 

I really don't know. And I can't vote anyway. But still. I was thinking Clinton for the longest time because I think America could do good with a female president, but then my World History teacher told her students about some of her old students who did something where they toured with Hilary and she was a royal b*tch. Always stand when she walks in a room, never speak unless spoken to, that kind of nonsense. And now the only other name that I can even think of is Obama, because of Osama, who used to scare me in my closet in the middle of the night when I was little.
 

I've been spreading the Ron Paul word too. If enough people can actually find out about what he stands for I think he would do well in the election.
 

I'm very glad to hear that you made that switch. Freedom is what it's all about, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who is willing to fight for it.
It's funny how in all the "official" polls Ron Paul only has like 6% yes in all the actual polls he has been winning hands down left and right. He has several straw polls in which he had received 70% or more of the votes.
I can't wait to see your next blog as they are always fun to read.
 

WooHOoo! Another Ron Paul supporter! I am happy to see that you did some homework before endorsing Dr. Paul :)

Here's to you.

Greg
 

I became a Ron Paul supporter when I learned that our National Debt is now more than $30,000 per man, woman, and child in this country. ( http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ ) That's a huge burden on my generation considering that once 70 million baby boomers retire they won't be paying another dime in income taxes towards paying down this debt. Our country's financial future depends on us making the right decisions at the voting booth. Become informed and tell others. http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm
 

Just make sure when you vote you know about ALL of each candidates policies. I can't vote for someone like Paul because he's anti-choice and believes gay marriage should be a state by state decision...which unfortunately would mean supporting some extremely outdated and prejudicial laws. Where you stand on those issues should be as important to you when choosing a candidate as any other consideration.

Just because he wants less corrupt gov't doesn't mean all of his notions of how to go about it are sound, nor does it mean that all of his policies are actually implementable or even reasonable. He's making a lot of promises he wouldn't actually be able to keep, especially economically.

For once I'd like to see a candidate who I could really, truly support without reservation...but it's politics. That'll happen about the same time politicians stop talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Anyway, vote with your own conscience always...but always make sure you know where the candidates stand on EVERY issue. Just in case they stand for something you really don't agree with.
 

Dr. Paul is a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology. He's delivered over 4,000 babies. So of course he's pro-life. He's seen unborn babies and knows they're not un-human or expendable.

And gay marriage SHOULD be a matter for states to decide. The federal government does not belong in the matter. Such issues are a matter of morality and/or personal preference. They're matters of, by and for the people. According to the Constitution, such matters are best left to the states -- which are more closely aligned with the will of the people -- to decide.

Ron Paul's reputation is above reproach. He is the most consistent voter in Congress. He has never talked about of both sides of his mouth, nor has he ever been accused of doing so. Why? Because the Constitution is his guide. Therefore, he does not waiver based on public opinion, nor does he succumb to liberal politics and policies that serve to undermine the Constitution.

If you understood how the Constitution works, you'd realize Ron Paul's stand on the issues would allow you to voice any opinion you wish and live your life how you choose. That doesn't mean lawlessness. It means living one's life within the framework of the norms of the people in each state -- not dictated by the federal government or, worse yet, nine members of an unelected Supreme Court. Liberalism does not equal freedom. Just the opposite, in fact. Please don't mistake that fact. Only the Constitution guarantees freedom for all people.
 

::shrug:: And those are all valid reasons I disagree with him on several issues. I don't necessarily think it is in the best interest for states to make every decision like that on their own, I think some things should be national, federal policy. Which doesn't mean I don't believe in states rights, by the way, but that I think there should be limits for each. But that's my opinion.

The point of my post, if you'd read it, was to offer up other areas of his platform that may affect people's decision to vote for him that do not have to do with his economic policies. Some social concerns are a big deal for a lot of people, which is why they bear scrutiny. I didn't actually advocate not voting for him, just gave the reasons why I wouldn't. I suspect there are other people who feel the same way. But my object was not to upset anyone or get yelled at via the internet. I accept that people have different and valid viewpoints than my own. You might want to check into that philosophy sometime.

I do in fact understand how the Constitution works, you're assuming a lot just because I don't support Paul's stance on some of these issues. I've done my research and I don't agree. Simple as that.

And just in case I need to reiterate: vote for who you want to vote for. Just make sure your candidate of choice gels with ALL the issues you find important.

Now back to your regularly scheduled blog.
 

I disagree with a large chunk of Ron Paul's ideologies, but I really appreciate the fact the guy seemed to actually believe what comes out of his mouth. He also strikes me as a true conservative, and that'd be refreshing (keep in mind, I'm a really liberal guy) after eight years of a conservative-in-name-only President.
 

Not sure if you ever visit Whedonesque, but your latest blog has sparked quite a political discussion over there. http://whedonesque.com/comments/15051
 

That's really cool!

I think Emma's celebrity, especially among younger voters, would help Ron Paul a lot. The discussions here and on the Whedonesque site are great. They get people talking.

Someone posted the comment on Whedonesque, "That's so Anya." And it is. Emma seems so much like Anya -- outspoken and possessing her own mind. That's what my wife and I love about her. Well, that and her tremendous acting abilities. :)
 

It's amazing to me how many people use hate to mask the fear that someone who speaks the truth causes them.

I have a phrase Buffy fans would understand and hopefully appreciate, when someone hears something true that they are not ready to face the realism of, their face goes blank until they shake their head and give you a completely unrelated response. I always say to my husband that they SunnyDaled it. Like the people who lived in Sunnydale who would see the vampires or other monsters true faces and blame it on drugs or a gas leak or something equally crazy so that there conscious mind did not have to deal with the unwanted realism that there are monsters and evil in this world. Politics are usually the time I see people "Sunnydale" information the most in real life.
 

Glad to hear it Emma, I wondered when you would join the Ron Paul bandwagon.
 

I am befuddled, I was a Democrat for over 30 years (occasionally did vote for a Republican) recently I re-registered as an Independant because all the Democrat candidates scare me. I feel they are extreme left and all about their celebrity. I can not be a Republican because I would fight to the death for a woman's (and often a teen girl's) right to make choices for her own body and her future. Mistakes happen and never in history has any man had to carry unwanted life in his body. For me personally, men can not legislate on this issue, this is a women's issue. For me I beleive Life does not end, it does not end with death so it does not end with abortion and my God loves unconditionally. Anyway, I have a fifteen year old with a baby, it was her choice. I support and love her unconditionally. Each woman must have the right to choose for herself (the choice needs to be in the first month to 6 weeks). Ron Paul, like all the other Republicans threaten the rights of my daughters. So again I am befuddled. I will vote for whoever the Republcan candidate is because I trust them to protect my country but I am concerned about my daughters (and granddaughter) and their right to choose.
 

awesome choice emma!I believe that he can help move this country in the right direction. i'm glad to see that at least one whedon alum has good politics sense and is voting for america's future!
 

I've been watching Ron Paul for some time now. I like his ideas more than those of any other candidate. However, there is one thing I absolutely love about Rudy - I already know how he'll respond in times of crisis. He will be a leader, he'll take charge, and he'll do what needs to be done. We saw that on 9/11.

Who will I be voting for? I still haven't decided.

Who won't I vote for? This list is long, and seems to grow daily. Huckabee and Edwards top that list, with McCain and Hillary close behind.

Is it just me, or do our choices grow worse with each Presidential election?
 

Just watch what the International Association of Fire Fighters thinks of Rudy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCuNRqFNOBY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCuNRqFNOBY

Here is the full documentary by the IAFF:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaCYEEO-58I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaCYEEO-58I

NY Fire Chief Jim Richards called Giuliani a coward:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU4Mlplw5ws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU4Mlplw5ws
 

That's some pretty damning stuff. If half is true (and it appears to be), Rudy's not looking too good.

Sadly, while I like Ron Paul's ideas, he seems to have very little chance of getting the Republican nomination. If Giuliani doesn't, that leaves Huckabee (OMG - he's more W than W is), Romney (much, MUCH more conservative than W - but at least he appears to be honest, unlike Bush and Huckabee), and McCain, who seems to agree with Bush and Pelosi that there shouldn't even be a southern border.

Great. Republicans in a shambles. The best choice isn't even being taken seriously.

The only good thing that's happened was watching Hillary get spanked. Now THAT was fun!!
 

Emma,

I just found out that Fox News -- the supposedly un-biased network that reports and lets its viewers decide -- has excluded Ron Paul from the upcoming New Hampshire presidential forum to be broadcast January 6th. Here's the story from Ron Paul's web site:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/94/has-fox-news-excluded-ron-paul

That ought to tell you everything you need to know about Dr. Paul. The establishment is scared shitless of him. But Dr. Paul's message of freedom will get out regardless. I just think it's terrible that Fox News has taken upon itself to censor Ron Paul.

I e-mailed Fox News (yourcomments@foxnews.com) to voice my outrage. I also e-mailed my local affiliate to let them know I'm not pleased with this matter.

Just FYI.

Bill
 

No news network is unbiased. It's just that most of them align themselves with the Democratic party. Fox doesn't quite - I'm not actually sure where Fox aligns, but it isn't unbiased.
 

Loving you Emma. I watched that interview from a hotel room in Dallas as it aired. Viva Ron Paul!
Hope you have a great 2008 and I miss ya.

Cheers,
M
 

Hey Emma and Friends:

Take a closer look at Dr. Paul and his policies before you vote for him. Please. His bottom line is that the Government is pretty useless and needs to get out of our lives. I certainly agree with that in many ways, but when it comes to issues like the Environment, Health Care, Education, and Caring for the Poor - there are few or no market-based, private sector solutions and its a cop out to leave it to the States to solve these problems. Ron Paul isn't a Democrat or a Republican, he's a Libertarian. The Libertarian view can be very compelling, but is flawed in many ways. For instance, Paul's solutions include:

Environmental Problems: Strengthen private property rights (huh???)
Education: Eliminate the Dept of Education, do more home schooling (again, huh???)
Immigration: Do whatever is needed to secure the border. Anyone who has spent time on the southern border knows thats impossible - 2000 miles with lots of mountains, rivers (Rio Grande) that will never be "secure". Border Patrol is already trampling private property rights and destroying wilderness areas and border communities (don't get me started)!

And then look at his thoughts on guns and assault weapons.

We will need a President who is willing to look at all possible solutions to problems. Ron Paul's vision of the future is severely constrained by his strong Libertarian philosophies.

And then, do we really want another Texan in the White House?
 

John stossel interviewed Dr. Paul and of course they couldn't spend the amount of time on each issue to really hash things over. That would take hours at best, but some basic things were covered. You can watch the interview clips at ABC News here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Stossel?gclid=CN_53PX34ZACFRqSQAodN1rePw
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Stossel?gclid=CN_53PX34ZACFRqSQAodN1rePw

As far as your question about strengthening private property rights improving environmental standards that was touched on in the clip entitled "Paul & Stossel: Libertarians Talk
". At about 1:10 into the clip Dr Paul stated that he owns river side property. He went on to say that if someone upstream of his property polutes the river he should have recourse as a person whos property was damaged to hold those responsable accountable. He also said that one of the roles of government is to enforce our rights to clean air. Keep in mind he could talk about environmental issues for hours if that was the only issue and time didn't matter and this is not his only solution to all environmental issues.

Then they also touched on the Federal Department of Education in the same clip starting at 1:47. Take note that it is mentioned that since the federal government got involved in our education system in the 1950s that the quality of education went down while the cost went up. They are grossly inefficient. Also check out Stossels 20/20 episode tittled "Stupid In America":
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/stossel/story?id=1500338
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/stossel/story?id=1500338

VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw


As for border problems, how come Mexico has stronger border protection than the US? What does Mexico do with illegal immigrants? Research time if you don't already know!

His thoughts on guns? how about that the 2nd amendment means what it says. What's wrong with that? Gun free zones kill people. They are a place for criminals to operate without fear or any honest person with the means to stop them. Dr. Suzanna Hupp has something to say about that. check this video out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71YpogEUCDI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71YpogEUCDI

and:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ggg0LwhrH0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ggg0LwhrH0

The assault weapon bans don't work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfKADcfE90U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfKADcfE90U

and those pushing for these bans in congress don't even know what they are banning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
 

First lets talk about assault weapons and the 2nd Amendment, which reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

OK, I think that says that We the People have the right to bear arms (but the meaning is muddied a bit by the language about Militias). So what is an "arm". Well in 1791 when this amendment came about it included muzzle-loaders, muskets, and similar primitive weapons. Could or did the authors of the 2nd amendment imagine the assault weapons, automatic weapons, etc. of today? I don't know, and the guys that wrote that aren't talking anymore. What about rocket launchers? Thats an "arm" isn't it? And then you've all heard about nuclear arms. Do we all have a right to bear nuclear arms? Automatic weapons are currently illegal. Is that Constitutional? Beats me. The Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment, doesn't answer these questions for us. So, guys, we're on our own. We the People need to make these decisions and then get our law makers to implement Our Will. Don't let Ron Paul, Hilary Clinton, the NRA or anyone else make those decisions for you.
 

Quote: "OK, I think that says that We the People have the right to bear arms (but the meaning is muddied a bit by the language about Militias)."
It's not that muddied if you read the other writings (including the personal writings) of those that debated and put to ink the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and those that built the very frames of our nation. It's also there if you read their speeches or the Federalist papers. Their beliefs and intent are quite obvious:
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions."
Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788
(1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution."

---

"The militia of these free commonwealths,
entitled and accustomed to their arms,
when compared with any possible army,
must be tremendous and irresistible.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms
each man against his own bosom.
Congress have no power to disarm the militia.
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier,
are the birth-right of an American ...
the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands
of either the federal or state governments,
but, where I trust in God it will ever remain,
in the hands of the people."
Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788
(1755-1824) American political economist
I could go on for days with quotes proving this point but I'm sure it is obvious already. People that thought this way set the framework for the best country this earth has seen.
It is ovious that this was meant to be an individual right for the liberty and security of said individual and the nation as a whole.

If you doubt that this meant modern weapons then:
"... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to
form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the
liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little
if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand
ready to defend their rights..."
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, No. 29
(1757-1804)The only non-presidential face to appear on our common currency other than Benjamin Franklin.
It was intended for the mass Citizenry to be a formidable threat to any that would threaten liberty.
Of course the other side of that coin is:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."
Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944, Edited by H.R. Trevor-Roper (London: Widenfeld and Nicolson, 1953), pp. 425-426.
(1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator
And we've seen how that turned out. Speaking of Hitler I'll bet you didn't know that the federal firearms control act of 1968 was almost a direct translation of Nazi law: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/860211/posts

Quote: "Well in 1791 when this amendment came about it included muzzle-loaders, muskets, and similar primitive weapons.
The above quotes, particularly Hamiltons show that weapons and skill and disipline in use of them rivaling the best trained and outfitted soldiers was intended. Also you must remeber that what we see today as "primitive weapons" were the most modern weapons of that day. They weren't talking about slings, spears, arrows and clubs which would have been primitive at that time. Otherwise we might have seen them write something more like this:


quote: "Automatic weapons are currently illegal. Is that Constitutional? Beats me."
Actually they are not illegal, unless you have local laws prohibitting them. They are "class 3" arms that can be owned by private Citizens that can pass a background check and pay the transfer tax. The tax is excessive however, at $200.00 for transfer paperwork. That type of taxation, for the reasons it is imposed, to own a modern effective weapon would certainly be frowned upon by those that tossed tea into the harbor at Boston and then went on to form this nation. Assuming that you have no criminal background you also can own a silencer for a $200.00 transfer tax, or a short barrel rifle or short barrel shotgun as well.
As far as rocket launchers, etc. A US Citizen could, not that long ago, own a bazooka type weapon, a howetzer type canon, 25mm anti tank guns etc. They were relatively cheap, as they were sold as army surplus. They also were imported from foreign countries. No excessive taxation or restrictions until after 1934. You didn't hear about towns being terrorized by a guy with a canon either. Just like you don't hear about bayanet killings today. As far as nuclear weapons go, nuclear material is already controled do to it's nature, even when used for medical or power production or otherwise, so that point is moot.
One thing I do know, is that if the fecal matter ever did hit the air circulation device, be it a massive dissaster, riot, or invasion, etc, I want the most modern effective tool for the job, and hope that my neighbors have them too.

quote: "We the People need to make these decisions and then get our law makers to implement Our Will. Don't let Ron Paul, Hilary Clinton, the NRA or anyone else make those decisions for you."

Keep in mind that this country was framed as a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy, for a reason, to protect us, sometimes even from ourselves. A pure democracy is organized mob rule. A constitutional republic makes for "Lex Rex" or the "rule of law".
"In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man,
but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
 

Second, lets talk about Ron Paul's environmental policy. He believes that if someone pollutes your property or otherwise causes environmental damage to you, then you're remedy is to sue them in court. Thats absurd (don't we have enough lawsuits?). As it works now, you would call up your State Dept of Environmental Quality or the Federal EPA and those agencies would simply bust the polluter and put a stop to it. Nowhere in the Constitution is environmental protection addressed (it wasn't an issue in the 1780s), and because of that Ron Paul would do away with the laws protecting the environment and the agencies that implement those laws. That leaves us where we were in the 1950s and 60s when your only recourse was to show in court that you had been harmed by environmental damage. Is that where we want to go in the year 2008?

Anyone think that Global Warming/Climate Change is a problem? I can't find those terms anywhere on Ron Paul's website. Certainly there is next to nothing there that would address the problem. At least George Bush admits there is a problem (although he isn't doing anything about it).
 

He does not think that suing them in court should be your only remedy. It certainly should be one of them though, and for the property owner that has had his property damaged, probably the most effective and desirable for him, would be being paid restitution for damages done as well as to "bust the polluter and put a stop to it".
quote: "Nowhere in the Constitution is environmental protection addressed (it wasn't an issue in the 1780s"
It wasn't specificly named, but certainly was addressed as an infringment on our basic human rights, and was covered as such.
His point was this:
Our governments primary responsibility is to protect the rights of the Citizens. This is true for a free nation founded on liberty, otherwise you are a serf, slave or subject under a sovereign rather than a sovereign Citizen yourself. Because you have a fundamental right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live on clean soil, it is the governments duty to not allow someone else to infringe on these rights. This holds even more true to your state as they, being more local to you have a duty to fewer individuals, (state citizens), and are more answerable to those citizens in close proximity. They have historicaly proven to be generally more efficient than the federal government as well.

Quote: ")...and because of that Ron Paul would do away with the laws protecting the environment and the agencies that implement those laws."
actually as I'm sure you are aware (or at least I hope so) The POTUS can not "do away with the laws". That would be unconstitutional on several levels. That would be the job of Congress and in some cases the judicial branch.
While I suspect he would like to do away with the Federal EPA, that does not mean he would do away with the state agencies like the "State Dept of Environmental Quality" that you mentioned. In fact Dr. Paul would like to keep your tax dollars in your state working for you on a state level that is more efficient and more directly answerable the their boss, you.
Some things from the 1950's and 60's coming back might not be so bad. How about all the manufacturing and industrial jobs we had in this country then that have gone to China now (and other countries for that matter). Neither the EPA nor your states counterpart to it can or will stop the pollution that those factories are belching out in record volumes and those people nor us have any legal or effective recourse to stop it now, but China's economy is booming and the Yen is skyrocketing While our economy is dying and the dollar is all but finished. We have virtually legislated ourselves to bankruptcy.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the global cooling scare of the '70s from the cooling trend from the 40's into the 60's or if you would remember it if you are. People tend to forget these things when they go away on their own without harming us. If you don't remember you can read the Newsweek, April 28, 1975 story here:
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
We know that the climate is n a warming trend.
We know it has happened before and is a reugular part of the cycle.
We know that the Sun is warming
We know that the polar caps on Mars are melting as well as those on Earth. However the caps on Mars are melting at a much higher rate than those on Earth, to the tune of several miles a year. Also the moons of Saturn and Jupiter are melting
We know all these things, but what we don't really know is if we have altered the climate that much ourselves. Our factories, SUVs and cow farts certainly are not warming the Sun or melting the polar caps on other planets or melting the frozen moons that orbit them into liquid seas. Do we really know without doubt that they are here. Is it simply a normal climate trend? Or is it possible or even likely the same types of scientist that scared us with "global cooling" are scaring us with global warming now? Are some politicians using it to their gain as scare tactics regardless?
It sure looks that way!
Are others using to their own gain as well?
David Mayer de Rothschild's book "77 Essential Skills to Stop Climate Changes" was used to promote the "Live Earth Project" Rothschild isn't a scientist per se, but it would seem that he felt knowledgeable enough about the subject to write a book. Too bad he didn't know that Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, are further from the Sun than the Earth! It's also too bad that he didn't know that even if they were indeed closer the the Sun than Earth that alone wouldn't explain why their caps and or moons are melting now, unless the Sun is on a warming trend, otherwise just being closer to the Sun wouldn't matter because they would have melted long ago if proximity was the only issue.
Audio clip of Rothschild saying this.

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624cul.asp
 

Wow, where to start?

OK, 2nd Amendment. All those quotes and news articles from long ago are interesting, but not very insightful in regard to the intent behind the 2nd amendment. Why? Because the author of the 2nd amendment was James Madison (no quotes). So all of that stuff equates to 16th Century blogosphere. Again, I would refer you to the text of the 2nd amendment (see my message above) - and then make your own decision about what it means. I don't know about you, Gentle Readers, but I think its WAY too easy for criminals to obtain weapons in this country. And Tracy - thanks for correcting me about the legality of automatic weapons. I feel a lot safer now.

Climate Change: Its true that a very few scientists think the sun is heating up and causing a warming trend here on Earth. However, most of those also believe that greenhouse gases are also causing global warming. And the vast majority of climatologists think that human activities have caused and will continue to cause warming, droughts, more fires, more floods, more intense storms, rising sea levels, etc. And we're already seeing those things. You don't have to believe me, Google the topic. Even if the sun is heating up, greenhouse gases and other human actions that cause climate change are the only part of the equation we can do anything about. If its all caused by the sun, then laides and gentlemen, we are royally screwed.

Illegal Immigration: Building fences, vehicle barriers, and sensors; and dramatically increasing law enforcement presence on the border treats the symptoms, but not very effectively. Do you really think a 15 foot fence will keep people out that have traveled 100s or 1000s of miles for a job in the USA? I've had Border Patrol agents tell me the fence is just a speed bump. The Governor of Arizona has said "Show me a 50 foot fence, and I'll show you a 51 foot ladder". If we really want a solution, then we have to address the source of the problem - jobs. There is a federal database that employers can use to quickly ascertain whether their employees are legal. Use of said database should be mandatory. If an employer is caught with an illegal alien in his or her employment, then impose a big fine. If the employer is caught twice, revoke their business license. Unfortunately, the politicians, who are all very pro-business, don't have the guts to go after employers. So instead, we are ineffectively spending billions of dollars on the border and creating an enormous, bloated, out-of-control bureaucracy (the Border Patrol) at great cost to the borderland environment and private property rights. Some try to make the argument that we need to stop illegal traffic at border for national security - that terrorists are getting into the country that way. Bullshit! The people that are really going to do us harm aren't running through the desert with briefcase bombs - they're flying into our airports with all their papers in order. And once they're here, its easy enough to get any kind of weapon they need.

I really need to bow out of this blog. Its a waste of time. Ron Paul has about as much chance of becoming president as a floppy-eared bunny in the Anyaverse.
 

YEAH EMMA!!!

I knew freedom was something that would be very persuasive in your decision!! Welcome to the Ron Paul Nation!!!

Let Freedom Ring!!
 

That interview was neither compelling nor life changing for me. Ron Paul looks like he's easily swayed into changing his beliefs and ideas. I agree with the person above, his ideas are flawed, and he doesn't look comfortable at all. His arguments were cheap.
 

You have to be kidding or delusional.

All one needs to do (which you obviously never did) is look at Ron Paul's "PUBLICLY AVAILABLE" voting record and essays for the past 30 years and you would clearly see Ron Paul is not sway-able at all and has had the same stance and has been speaking truth and liberty for his entire run in office.

And to say his arguments were cheap is just ridiculous. I guess the constitution is cheap right? Just a damn piece of paper right?

Ignorant people like you are what's wrong with this country. Go back to watching faux news where the sidewalks are made of marshmallows, war is dandy and they'll do all the thinking for you.
 

I have been following Dr Paul and what he has been doing for years and was overjoyed to say the least when I first heard that he was running for POTUS. In all the years I've been watching him I have never seen him easily swayed from his convictions, again to say the least.

Could you elaborate just a bit on what you think are flawed ideas? Also on what arguments were cheap or how?
 

Hi Kay,

Ron Paul may be a lot of things. But "easily swayed" isn't one of them. And I see nothing "flawed" or "cheap" about his ideas. Please do more research on the man. Visit his official web site. Read what he's saying. I think you'll find -- as I did -- that he's the most consistent, logical-thinking candidate running for office. God help us all if the Constitution no longer applies to our lives and our country!

And of course he doesn't look "comfortable." He's not a politician. He's not polished, practiced, and slick like most candidates. (And don't even get me started on "Slick Willy" or his equally slick wife!) He's genuine. And that, in itself, is refreshing beyond belief.

Bill
 

Okay Bill, I'll do some more research on him. That interview didn't convince me, but i'll keep looking. Who knows.
 

Simply awesome!
 

Great choice! 5th place in Iowa is AWESOME! It's all go from here!

Oh, and someone said "easily swayed". Even his strongest critic would never say such a thing on TV, they'd be laughed out of the studio. If there is one thing Ron Paul is, it is ROCK SOLID. Nothing has swayed him from voting against the constitution in 30 years, nothing is about to. Perhaps you were thinking about Romney?
 

I said easily swayed because there were a few things brought up that he had said in the past that he's changed his mind about. Like the eliminating public schools thing. Also, there were many things brought up that were quoted by him that he supposedly didn't say. It's convenient to say that the other person misunderstood.

Also, I do not agree on eliminating taxes. That would be chaotic. We would lose so much money, it's not even funny.
 

Fair enough, two things to work with here.

Yes it is convenient to say the other person misunderstood, but often the other person does misunderstand. The good thing about the youtube generation is that you can't say much in the public eye that doesn't get spread all over. I challenge anyone to find footage of Dr. Paul saying he wants to eliminate public schools. I bet you will only find footage where he suports your choice, your right to choose whether you go to a public school, private school or home school. You will also find where he does not like federal usurpation and involvement in local schools. Schooling is a state and local issue. The tenth amendment of the constitution states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Out of all the laws we have there is only one law that all public servants must specificaly swear to uphold and protect, the Constitution. Almost all of them break that oath regularly including when they create new laws or regulations or programs that violate the tenth amendment. That amendment is there to keep the power local so that it is best controlled by the people, not a tyrant thousands of miles away.

Now on to taxes. Show me anything that Ron Paul has said about eliminating taxes completely. I don't think it exists. There is a big, massive, huge difference between the blanket statement "eliminating taxes" and "eliminating federal income tax" or "reducing taxes and government spending". Paul wants to reduce federal spending and eliminate federal income tax. I bet you didn't know that completely eliminating the federal income tax would reduce the federal tax base back to what it was in the year 2000. That's right the federal goverment collects many other taxes than the income tax and if we eliminate the income tax federal funding will only be dropped back to what it was in the year 2000. But we also have to reduce wild federal spending.
We are going broke and the average American is clueless to this fact!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxoP_9W6FC8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxoP_9W6FC8
or
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7461407498377956300&hl=en
or search google video or youtube for "comptroller General"
NOTE in the youtube video above that at about 41 seconds to 52 seconds what is said :
"It's been called the dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows. A set of financial truths so inconvenient that most elected officials don't even want to talk about them."
We are so used to politicians saying what we want to hear that when a true statesman like Ron Paul tells us the truth it is like a cold fish being slapped across our face.
The things Ron Paul is best known for are being well read, truthfull, and standing firm for what he belives.
Now if you only knew why he wants to eliminate the federal reserve! You would probably think that was crazy too until you learned how the federal reserve works, what it is doing to us and why just printing more money causes the massive inflation we are seeing. People that don't understand it just get a glazed look in their eyes when he starts talking about inflation and "just printing money".
 

Since when is finishing 5th in a field of 6 "AWESOME"?? Iowa and New Hamshire are political backwaters that are not representative of the country as a whole, but (right or wrong) they are the first, so they set the pace and if a candidate does poorly in those places, he or she gets labelled as a loser. A lot of people don't like to vote for losers; they feel like their vote is wasted unless they vote for someone who can win. So unless Paul can get out of the cellar real soon, his fate will be set. I'm NOT a Ron Paul supporter, but I think the system sucks. Iowa and New Hamshire shouldn't have that kind of power. All the primaries should be held on the same day.

In any case, when the dust settles on 6 Feb, we'll likely know who the Republican and Democrat nominees will be.

If Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination (likely scenario), will he stick around and run as a 3rd party candidate? Maybe. If he does, he probably won't have much effect on the outcome. Libertarians tend to draw support from both the right and the left.
 

Sorry sweetie-the guy is too isolationist for me. I'm going with Romney.
 

Dr. Paul may not be your cup of tea and that's fine, but he most certainly is not an isolationist! He wants diplomacy and trade and friendship with all nations. There is a huge difference between an isolationist and a non interventionalist.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJwezff4nj0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeEOy4EukdI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHCmi-B17Xw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf6CjcJBeM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeqxQwI-0u4
 

Hey Emma,

Ron Paul's web site (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements) just posted your MySpace blog. You're now officially one of the many top celebs, authors, sports figures, economists, doctors, and others who have gone on record as supporting Ron Paul.

Congrats!

Did you catch RP on Jay Leno last night? I gained a great deal of respect for Jay for allowing Dr. Paul to have over 20 minutes of time to talk, especially about Faux News dissing him for their January 6th Republican forum. Video from Leno's show is now on YouTube, The Daily Paul (www.dailypaul.com) and elsewhere.

Some pollsters are saying RP is ahead of Romney and Giuliani in New Hampshire.

Go Ron Go!

Bill
 

I decided to look up Ron Paul after you mentioned him and at first I was a little leary because he came up as Republican. Usually I lean more towards the Democratic party But after learning more about him and finding out what he stands for, I am for Ron Paul all the way! Our country would benefit so much to have a president like him. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the funding needed to get himself more out there. So I hope that more people will make donations for his campaign and spread the word. Thanks Emma for spreading the word and hopefully others will too!!
 

At least Ron Paul is consistent - 5th place again (8% of the vote). But thats better than when he ran for President in 1988 on the Libertarian ticket (he got 0.5% of the vote back then). So I suppose Congratulations are in order.

Emma - can we start talking about VIABLE candidates now?
 

Ron Paul in debate answering a question about his viability as a conservative republican candidate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kioYYYvHMRs