The drug cartels go away too, if we’re growing fields of poppy in Kansas then there is no reason for people to buy opium from the drug lords in the middle east. They suddenly can’t afford to maintain their domination over local populaces. No reason to buy vast amounts of coke from some Columbian cartel when I can just get it delivered from Amazon.com. There’s suddenly no reason to smuggle drugs up from Mexico or down from Canada, no risk getting caught and shot.  No cops getting shot kicking in stash house doors, or busting street dealers.

Drug prohibition is just as backwards and ignorant as alcohol prohibition was.  I can only hope that someday we figure that out about drug prohibition and stop flushing money and lives down the drain.

I would like to see us move to a simplified non-punative progressive system.  I would say that we put no tax on the low end of the income spectrum.  Perhaps take the poverty level calculations and say that income up to that amount is not taxed at all.  So lets say the first $30,000 you earn is not taxed at all.  Then from $30,000 to $100,000 is taxed at a low tax rate, just a flat 2% to pull a number out of thin air.  So it’s not that you break into a new tax bracket at $30,001 income and suddenly owe 2% of your entire income.  Instead  you just begin to pay tax on that income, so you’d owe 2% of that $1 and nothing on the $30,000.  Then you slowly increase the percentage tax as the income brackets go up, say 3% on $100,000 to $250,000 then 5% on $250,000 to $500,000.  I don’t know what the numbers should be, but I think we could figure something out.  Keep it simple no loopholes or shelters or anything.  Although I’d be all for a complete exemption for any and all forms of education, just don’t count any of that money towards income.

The benefit of this system is that there isn’t any punishment for increasing your income.  It gives huge benefit to those at the lower end of the income spectrum, allowing them to keep that money that will help them the most.  For those who begin to make more they don’t have to worry that they’ll hit a higher tax bracket and make it harder to maintain what they had before.  You’ll never make less because you earn more.

“When you see it, well, it sure makes a believer out of you,” said Representative Charles Anderson of Waco, a Republican state lawmaker who is sponsoring one of several bills to ban salvia in Texas.

How about this, for every YouTube video of some idiot taking Salvia and acting stupid I’ll find you two videos of some idiot getting drunk and acting stupid.  Hell for every Salvia video I’ll find you one of somebody not taking anything and still acting stupid.  It’s not the drugs, it’s not the booze, there are just a bunch of stupid people out there.  Banning this stuff isn’t going to fix that.  It’s just going to create more criminals and another black market for organized crime to tap into.

He also told his colleagues about a video that depicts a salvia user behind the wheel of a car. (In fact, that video, “Driving on Salvia,” is one in a series of popular parodies …) … “What we really worry about,” Mr. Anderson said at the hearing, “is youngsters doing this and then getting in a vehicle or getting on a motorcycle or jumping in a pool somewhere.”

How about as an alternative to banning this substance we instead teach the youngsters that it’s stupid and dangerous to operate said vehicle while impaired.  We could also try explaining the risks to them.  If they are old enough to be operating vehicles then they should be able to comprehend the risks.  Tell them that while you may not want them experimenting with these drugs, if they do they need to be careful.  Don’t go driving, don’t start playing with weapons or matches, don’t go hang out by the pool.  Trying to protect them by just banning these substances isn’t going to help.  In fact it’s going to leave them ill prepared to recognize and evaluate risks throughout their lives.

I don’t have a problem with a person of faith being in the office of the Presidency, regardless of what particular religion they ascribe to. As long as that person is able to separate their personal beliefs from what the role of the federal government is. I definitely won’t accept the type of rhetoric that paints us as the righteous and those opposed to our policies as wicked. Saying put our ships in your sights and we’ll send you straight to hell is scary as hell.

Then every candidate while agreeing that the commander made the right decision and they should be the ones to make those decisions. But then they all go on to spout more rhetoric and ramp up the “Iran is dangerous” line. In spite of Ron Paul’s mention that earlier today the Navy commander announced that maybe the voice on the radio talking about ships blowing up might not have come from those speedboats after all. So how do they justify using the incident to ramp up the aggression.

I am not saying that I can predict what Dr. Paul’s personal feelings on the subject might be, but the great thing is that I don’t have to. All I need is a copy of the Constitution and I can determine what his position will be. Because he understands the basic tenet of liberty, that just because I would choose a certain way does not mean that I have any right to make you choose that way. The Constitution spells out exactly what powers the federal government has. In most instances where I don’t guess correctly it’ll probably be because he has some other Constitution reason I had not thought of to say so.

That is just another of the reasons that I have chosen to participate to this much greater degree in the electoral process. Every election I have been aware of I was hoping someone would be saying the things that Ron Paul is saying now. But they never would. I’m looking for complete and total honesty and openness. Like the live ticker on his site showing how much he has raised. Like his willingness to state what his true position is and how the Constitution brought him to that position. You will often hear the other candidates embracing the Constitution on a topic when it lines up with the popular position. But when the Constitution gets in the way of their popular position it’s suddenly out of date and quaint. You don’t get that response from Ron Paul.

Take for example the question in the recent debate: “What are the names of the top three federal programs you would reduce in size in order to decrease spending?” Thompson responds by talking about Social Security. Cooper asks “So of the top three you would say Social Security?” Thompson responds “No. I didn’t say that.” Well then what the hell were you talking about? The question was asking for three programs to reduce. Ron Paul’s answer: “I would like to change Washington, and we could by cutting three programs, such as the Department of Education — Ronald Reagan used to talk about that — Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security is the biggest bureaucracy we ever had.” Now you may not like that answer, but he’s at least answering the question.

So when you are watching next time and wondering what seems so out of place about Ron Paul. The answer is that he’s thinking, processing your question and telling you what he thinks, and why he thinks that. He does not just segue into one of the 30-90 second prepared answers that all of the other guys give. It’s easy to appear to know what you are talking about when you’ve got your talking points memorized and screened and parsed by campaign staff to ensure there isn’t anything in there that might alienate anyone. They make sure to talk a lot, but don’t say anything, and for sure don’t answer any actual questions.

Ron Paul is odd, and that is for sure what I am looking for from my Presidential Candidate. I want someone who differs in nature from the ordinary politician. I want someone who will do their best to enforce The Constitution on the federal government. Someone who is going to take that oath, the only one required for office, to “uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States of America” seriously. So I say hooray for oddness, Go Ron Paul!

“When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground,” Bush said, “and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.”

So the President of the United states is telling us that Congress should listen to our military commanders and the terrorist leader that they are supposedly fighting when trying to decide how to fund the military, rather than to the people that elected them and groups setup by them to voice their stringent opposition to the war. We should listen to the two parties that have the most interest in increasing our funding and continuing to prosecute this war. Ignore the citizens of this country who don’t think this is the way the country should be run, and want us to have a foreign policy that doesn’t interfere with other nations unnecessarily.

Well ignore the message of the people at your own peril, remember WE are the ones who put you into office . If you don’t have the courage to stand up for what we have to say, then we’ll be putting someone else in there next election.

The internet is making his campaign possible The information can not be censored and is spreading to every corner of the internet very quickly.

There is not a single politician on that stage that does not want to increase his/her power over you and I and give themselves more control over our lives. The overwhelming number of American people (those who are not obscenely rich) do not want any of the following: perpetual warfare, national ID cards (essentially carrying our papers), implantable chips, North American Union and the dissolution of our borders, giving 4 months worth of wages to government bureaucracy, fiat money, and the list goes on and on. This is because every single one of those issues transfers power from the people, to the government. The direction of the country and government in recent years has people realizing that the government can not run their lives better than they can. They are no longer falling for the lie that we can’t be both FREE and SAFE.

I know many Protestant Christians. They enjoy church at least 3 times a week and are involved with bible studies in between. This is relevant because these are the people who voted for Bush twice because they believed he represented their values. They represent to me one of the power bases of Bush’s candidacy that hugely affected the outcome of the elections in both 2000 and 2004. The media is attempting to prop up Romney or Guliani as their next representative, but Ron Paul fits the bill so much better in the most important ways:

Ron Paul is pro-life. I advocate a woman’s right to choose, but Ron Paul leaves it up to the states to decide and that is great by me. A compromise that people on both sides of that debate can agree on.

Ron Paul is against the national ID card which is a step in the direction of taking the mark with implanted microchips coming soon after. Or from a non Christian point of view, it represents the notion that we are being coerced into carrying our papers.

Ron Paul is furiously battling the money changers as Jesus did in the temple. They are represented by both the government (IRS) and the Federal Reserve private bank both of which defy the constitution. He is the only one on that entire stage that has the strength of character to stand up to them. Everyone else (except one or two lower tier candidates) are bought and paid for by the establishment.

Ron Paul would not sacrifice anyone’s freedom to practice their beliefs in the name of safety and security. There is no security gained by the confiscation of our civil liberties and individual freedoms.

Ron Paul does not support the idea that the government is entitled to 4 months worth of our hard earned money. This money is being completely absorbed by the interest on the debt we’ve racked up and is paid to the Fed as profit. If any institution is an enemy of the American people it is that one.

Many Christians agree with almost all of those points are telling their entire community about him. I can virtually guarantee that the majority of those communities will realize they are voting in favor of their interests when they vote for Paul.

It is not just the religious folks though. Ron Paul is a hero to a huge and diverse group of people in America for a variety of different reasons. His message appeals to basically everyone that isn’t rich and powerful. The incredible momentum he has built on the internet (the internet phenomenon) has not come about because people who use the internet like Ron Paul. It has come about because the internet represents the only medium currently for people to be exposed to Ron Paul, and the vast majority that are exposed begin to fervently support him. The message represents an excellent alternative to the incredible problems that most people perceive in our government, and it differentiates itself from every other candidate. Voting for Ron Paul is giving people an opportunity to express their frustration with the establishment while taking more into their own hands.

I believe that dissent from the establishment is patriotic and that most Americans are on the same team and don’t realize it. The mainstream conversation does a good job in creating friction and controversy as well as getting the right and left to hate each other. But people from both the right and the left love freedom, that is what Ron Paul represents. If the main stream media starts giving Ron Paul the press he deserves, he could win the whole thing in a landslide. Otherwise the wild card will continue to be the grassroots campaign which continues to pick up momentum, mobilize, and organize. With the polls still several months away there is plenty of time to spread the word.

U.S. forces have begun arming nationalist guerrillas and former Saddam Hussein loyalists — and coordinating tactics — in a marriage of convenience against al Qaeda radicals in one of Iraq’s most violent provinces, senior U.S. commanders tell CNN.

Has the military lost its mind? Does the President or anybody in the military actually believe that this could possibly turn out to be a good thing? Have they learned nothing from history? This is exactly the same situation that we got ourselves into in Afghanistan when we helped rebel forces there fight the Russians. That worked in the short-term, but didn’t turn out so good for us in the long run.

In the 1980′s during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the United States via the C.I.A. helped the mujahideen fight the Russians because we were afraid of communism. In the short-term the plan worked wonderfully, and in 1987 the Russians began to withdraw. However in the long run this plan looks less successful. You may recognize the name of the mujahideen, it’s been in the news off and on in recent years. It was the group where Osama Bin Laden got his start during that same time, and out of which he formed his Al-Qaeda network, shortly after the end of the Soviet / Afghanistan conflict. This is the man and the organization responsible for the September 11 attacks. I’d say that in the long run that plan didn’t work out so well.

I don’t even see this plan working well in the short-term even. These are the same people we just got through fighting with not two months ago! I realize that many Americans and certainly American politicians have short memories, but two months?!? For this to even be successful at all we have to hope those same insurgents we were fighting two months ago have forgotten how much they hate our freedoms. Then maybe they’ll use the weapons to kill Al-Qaeda for a little while. Eventually however they’ll remember that they aren’t too fond of us. And when Al-Qaeda has been subdued somewhat they’re going to turn those same guns we gave them right back on us.

How about we take a moment and think this thing through? Even when this tactic has been successful in the past, it’s eventually come back to bite us. Perhaps we should consider not giving any more people weapons and assistance. Let’s allow this country to figure out for itself what type of government it should have. If there are issues of oppression and killings we should by all means condemn such acts. We should apply whatever economic and political pressures we can to get them to stop. Stop buying oil from countries with dictators that oppress and murder its citizens. The use of military force though should be reserved for defense sovereignty, and not in an attempt to force democracy on a population. You can’t force freedom on someone at the barrel of a gun.

Instead we should show people what freedom can do, we should become that shining beacon of democracy and freedom. If we take the high road and don’t interfere with other sovereign nations, and guarantee the liberties of our citizens and any people we deal with. Eventually the people will see the benefits, and want to emulate us. Eventually they will band together themselves and overthrow their oppressive governments. If we overthrow the government for them, they’ve never learned the lessons of liberty and freedom. They’ve just latched onto a different authoritarian. While again this is better in the short-term than staying reliant on a totalitarian dictator, in the end it’s not that different.

The lust for power and money has corrupted our political landscape since long before my generation. The more complex the system gets, the greater the problems that potentially come with it. A molecule or a cell can’t get cancer, but a liver or lymph (which are made up of molecules and individual cells working together) can. Along with extremely complex systems come the potential of extremely complex pathologies. I think there are several pathologies present in our governmental systems that will eventually lead to the “death” of the entire “system” of the US. How is that for fear mongering?

The cancer is corruption at every level in every position in the political system. The politicians are so corrupt that we routinely joke about it. With a wink and a smile we routinely accept our sad fate of having 2 mascots of corrupt enterprise to vote for. So we either join in on the symbolic act of voting, or we don’t. It doesn’t really matter who wins. The Republicans want big government so they can make their corporate friends richer as well as themselves become much richer after leaving office. The democrats want big government to control and dish out money as they see fit (but at least seem to care about other people) as well. The problem with big government is that the system is too complex for the for the collective shadow to not create disease in some respect. There is not a strong enough immune system (moral/ethical intelligence) in our governmental systems. Disease in our government creates dis-ease among the people and removes freedoms and liberty. The solution in the short term is to simplify government effectively wiping out a lot of opportunities for complex sickness.

Luckily, there is a physician among us running for President. Not only in the conventional sense but in our symbolic sense as well. There is someone running for president that votes consistently on principle. This man in power will have a huge impact on the corruption of this country and the current diseases in our governmental body. He wants to remove so much of the complexity of it, which has allowed parasitic infestations to remain undetected for entirely too long. His record is as follows:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

None of that is screaming corruption to me… If you haven’t heard of him, his name is Ron Paul and he is the real deal. Now vote in the primaries and save our democracy’s life…