Super Tuesday Eve

We have had a quite a debate going on a previous post about the remaining candidates, and being we are one day away from Super Tuesday, I think I will make yet another political post, stating and finalizing my position to vote for Ron Paul. First off though, thank you to everyone who has offered their opinions and analysis. One of the reasons this country is so great is we can do this very thing, debate the issues and choose for ourselves. This dialogue is important so we become informed voters. So, with that preamble, I am going to dive into a very long post. For those of you not interested in this topic, this might be your jumping-off point. For those of you choosing to stay on board, thanks for giving my viewpoint the time of day and some consideration. As always, I welcome and encourage your comments / critiques even if they don't align with my ideas. In fact, I expect a lot of you don't agree. The only other person I know that does agree with me right now is Karen, but I still respect all your opinions!

First, I'd like to explain why I am NOT supporting the other remaining candidates, and I'll start by addressing the Democratic Party. I have long said I remain unaffiliated with either party. Both have their pros and cons, and neither one really encompasses all that I believe. However, in Utah, I probably have more Democratic leanings (most Demo's in Utah are really just moderate GOP on a national level). I am often annoyed by the Utah Republican party attempting to form a Mormon theocracy and doing favors for big business, which is far from real conservatism.

At the national level, however, I can't support the liberalism of the Democratic Party, and I actually don't mean that in terms of abortion and gay rights (while I am pro-life, abortion is not a pivotal issue for me, and I am probably a lot more liberal about gay rights than a lot of people in these parts). The issue that most concerns me is giving the national government more control. That is dangerous business. Both remaining candidates promote universal health care, gun control, more support of labor unions, etc.

Now, on the surface this looks good. What's wrong with trying to help everyone have health care? What's wrong with trying to keep guns out of violent hands and off our streets? What's wrong with protecting the rights of workers? Those are very noble goals. I think the majority of us want a safer, more prosperous, more healthy society. The problem is, the government shouldn't compel us to have this. This should be each individual's choice.

Universal health care is socialism, pure and simple. We pay the government a very large chunk of our pay check and they make sure we have at least basic health care needs met. In my heart of hearts, I am a socialist, well probably more accurately, a communist. In fact, if you believe in Mormon theology, you have to believe somewhat in it too. We believe, in the millennium, we will have all things in common. Everyone will have what they need, everyone will prosper and we won't class distinction. We'll be living in a 4th Nephi world, and I can't wait! However, at that time, I believe, we will choose to live that way. We will want to share. We won't want to look better than others by having more than the next person. No one will want to take advantage of one another. Finally, Christ will be our supreme ruler, which will ensure no corruption and true charity.

However, that is not the world we live in currently. In order to get people to share or not take advantage of one another we need to have the government monitor. The problem with that is the power to distribute, in this case, health care, is given to a very small group of people. Some of these people may have our best interests at heart, but most of the time, the adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely still remains in force, and history has proven it time and time again. If you give power to only a few, they become greedy for it, and they will seek more. This is true of any socialist / communist program. Those that have risen to the top only do things that help themselves and their friends. So, you have corrupt people at the top and the people at the bottom resent those with all the power. Remember, people can't be compelled to share, they must choose to. So, this applies to all socialist / communist programs our government already has or is proposing to put into place, i.e., social security, medicaid, proposed universal health care, etc.

As a final quick note on the socialist programs of our government - they cost a lot, and we're going to be the ones left paying for it for generations to come, because the expenses are too great for the current generation, who is receiving the benefits, to handle. Our deficits will continue to go up, as will our taxes, and we will never get ahead.

Now, on to gun control...I have never handled a gun in my entire life, not do I intend to, unless it is in a dire, dire situation. It's just not my thing. However, I am a very strong advocate of the second amendment. Remember, the founding fathers came from a very oppressive government, which is why they limited our government's powers so much in the Constitution. These men recognized the need for each individual to be able to defend themselves should the government become as corrupt as England's had at the time of the revolution. Many of you probably laugh at the thought of an up-rising against the government, common man wielding their shot guns against a corrupt US government. However, the possibility is more real than you think. There are a lot of very powerful people out there, with vast amounts of money, who want to control as much of the money in the world as they can. Their power already runs deep within many of the world's governments, including ours, and honestly, there may come a day when we are really grateful we have our second amendment rights or really sorry we gave them up.

I could keep going on about giving the government more power, but I'll leave it at that. The two main points I hope I made though are many of the plans Demo's want to implement will 1) concentrate a lot of power into a small group of people's hands, compelling the public to do and to pay what they say and taking away people's rights to choose, and further corrupting those with the power, and 2) taking away people's individual liberties, which help protect personal freedom for each person (horrible run-on sentence, I know).

With that being said, I like to think most Democrats want to implement their government programs because they want to honestly help each individual. They don't want anyone to fall through the cracks the pure capitalists will inevitably leave behind. This is, personally, the kind of ideal I feel Obama espouses. I get the impression he just wants to help out the downtrodden and make life more equitable for everyone in the US. I just don't agree with his proposed method of doing it by giving the government more power. Even if he does have honest intentions, who's to say those who follow him will? It's much harder to get rid of that power once it's been given to government. Future leaders could exploit it. We should always remember why the founding fathers limited the government's power. They know how evil and corrupt people can get, especially in positions of power. I want to like Obama, but I can't support him for those reasons.

On to Hillary...I don't even believe she cares a lick about helping out the American people. If you do your research, you'll find she and Bill have connections in very high places, where the money is. I strongly believe she is in it to serve these people's best interests. They want her to win and are doing everything they can to manipulate the election so she does win and they get their interests met. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I believe elections are rigged, I believe the international bankers basically manipulate and rule the world as much as they can, and I believe Bill was and Hillary is their puppet on American soil to achieve their goals. I will not vote for her at any cost.

Ok, I have beaten the Demo horse to death, so on to the Republican candidates. I actually feel there are only slight differences between McCain, Huckabee and Romney. They all want to continue the war in Iraq until they reach the arbitrary point that we can claim "victory". They all say they want to balance the budget and lower taxes. I find these two positions, however, contradictory. I would be interested to see how they can take in less money than they are currently and maintain a troop surge in Iraq, as well as continue all our other military pursuits, and then take care of all the veterans who return home from their tours of duty. We are running up billions of dollars a day in deficit to maintain our current military pace. I want to know what other programs or government expenditures they plan to cut in order to charge us less, keep our country's debt in check and still win in Iraq. I haven't seen or heard any concrete plans from any of them on this issue. They just claim they can. I think Romney's background makes him somewhat qualified, but I think this is a much bigger beast than he's ever dealt with before, so it would be interesting to see if he can pull it off. I'd trust him to do it more than the other two, however. McCain shows he knows nothing about economics and it appears he will just keep doing what Bush is doing, which is have no real plan, just keep spending until we "win". I know Huckabee has dealt with budgets as governor in Arkansas, but his record shows he doesn't cut taxes on a regular basis, so I'd be skeptical of him living up to that claim.

Now, to address each GOP candidates I am not voting for, individually...As I stated earlier, McCain shows he has no understanding in economics, and the economy is probably the single biggest problem we face as a country, as it's in major peril and affects, basically, everything else. I want someone who knows their stuff when it comes to history, economics, etc. McCain has proved none of that to me. I appreciate that he was a POW and am grateful for his service to his country, but I am tired of hearing about it all the time. He is also a name-dropper, which to me, indicates he just cares about his connections. I don't believe he is as well-connected as Hillary is, but I think he will mostly do favors for his friends and cares very little for the American people's wishes. He is also way to liberal when it comes to immigration law / reform and has threatened our first amendment rights with bills he's tried to pass. He'll basically be another Bush. He also would never beat either Hillary or Obama. He doesn't stand a chance.

Huckabee, to me, is actually a lot like Romney. He does have an interesting idea with the fair tax. I am not necessarily opposed to that idea just yet, but I am not completely convinced of it either. It would change how we managed our money and I think it would hurt the lower class, but I think it's worth a look. He does ride his religious high horse a bit too much. I am glad he's not ashamed of his beliefs but he's using them to get ahead and that doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth. It wouldn't kill me to have him get the nomination, but if I voted for him it wouldn't be with any enthusiasm.

Romney has a lot of support in these parts and for good reason. He really did lift the Olympics out of scandal and it ended up being a wonderfully successful event. He has a record of being a good man and an exceptional business man. He does have the credentials to address our economic issues. As I mentioned above, however, I would be interested to see how he plans to do it with all he's promising to do, and I was never impressed with his assertion that he'd like to double the size of Gitmo. More than anything, I guess, and this has little to do about politics and all to do with personal preference, I don't love that he has become a major representative to the nation of the LDS church. Sure, it's not official, and I know the church promotes no candidate, but people who don't understand see it that way. They will look to him and get some impression, if they don't have much of one already, of how Mormons are, and I don't like that because I don't think he represents us well. He is good man, but he's not inspiring. He doesn't rise above the filthy political games. He often acts smug in interviews and debates. He slings the mud, just like everyone else, every chance he gets. I guess I always wanted a "Mormon candidate" to rise above all the crap and set a higher ideal for the nation. He's failed to do that and that disappoints me. However, it wouldn't kill me to vote for him. I'd vote for him over the two Demo candidates and probably not have to plug my nose. He at least knows how to manage money and I believe he's an honest man.

As one final note on the Republican candidates, I actually think only one could beat the Democrats, given the chance, and that is Ron Paul. I know you're all rolling your eyes since you know I adamantly support him, but I'll tell you why I believe that way. Somewhere around 70% of the nation wants to get out of Iraq. All of the other GOP candidates will get defeated from that issue alone, I believe. Because RP wants to pull out also he has a fighting chance to beat the Demo's. If you had Ron Paul against either Hillary or Obama, you'd make the nation choose to either give the government more control, but worry less about getting your own health care, protecting your job, etc., which is honestly important to some people. Or, you'd choose to take power away from the government and gamble that it's better to let the free market run its course, meaning you aren't guaranteed things like health care or job security, but you'd maintain your personal liberties. It really is a compelling choice.

I know, I know, RP doesn't have a shot according to most people, but I am still holding out hope. No one can force him out until he is voted out of the primary. He keeps garnering support as people learn more about him and his positions, and he keeps getting money donated to his cause. He really looks to the root of the problems we are facing as a nation rather than trying to band-aid the symptoms. You wouldn't know that from the debates or news reports. They pretend he's not ever there and don't give him enough time to explain himself. The media has an interest in him not winning because he wouldn't do any special favors for them like any of the other candidates would be apt to do (most media moguls are or are affiliated with the international bankers who want to keep their control over the world's money). However, MTV (of all stations) did have a forum with him where young voters were able to ask him difficult questions and he was able to answer them without being cut off or interrupted or smirked at. Here is the link to this forum. It about 25 minutes of Ron Paul explaining his positions which is far more attention than he ever gets. Please at least watch it and go to polls informed as to why or why not you are voting for each candidate.

One other interesting point to ponder...Many GOP reject RP's ideas because he is not strong on national defense. However, he has received more donations from current and former military personnel than all the other GOP candidates combined. They believe he is strong on national defense because he will fight fights here to defend our freedoms and will make sure to take care of our vets. Many agree with his understanding about why we get into these wars, and why it is wrong. They've been there. They've seen the conflicts. I think they may just know about it a bit more than we do. Also, he, like McCain is also veteran. He served in the Air Force.

If you actually got this far in my post, I thank you for listening to my rant. I really, really don't mind debate, so please have at it. As I always say, the more educated we all are the better. And, please go vote tomorrow!