Why I support Ron Paul

Prior to his entrance into the race for the GOP nomination, I supported Rudy Giuliani. I still like Rudy, make no mistake, but ideologically Ron Paul is superior (even if he's a dirty Texan ;) ). Ron Paul, Congressman from rural southeast Texas, is the ONLY libertarian-minded thinker in Congress, voting for limited, Constitutional government 100% of the time.

Like I said, he is a thinker - unlike the remainder of Congress. He's allowed to think due to the fact that 98% of his campaign funds come from individuals, not special interests and big corporations. His philosophical roots go back to Johne Locke, Adam Smith, and the American Founding Fathers. He is the only man in Congress arguing what George Washington wanted: "entangling alliances with no one and free trade with everyone." He believes in the original intent of the Constitution - something that Chris Matthews scoffed at during the debate last Thursday.

Ron Paul and I share the belief that the purpose, the ONLY purpose, of government is to secure the rights of life, liberty, and property of its people. In other words, you have the right to swing your fist wherever you want, so long as you don't hit my nose with it. That is where your rights end and the government must intervene. Otherwise, it should stay out. That means NO pre-emptive wars against dictators that did not aggress against us, NO laws against victemless crimes such as marijuana smoking and sodomy, and NO entitlement programs. This is how government functioned up until the Progressive Era of the early 1900's, and that is how government should function in the future.

In the debate, Paul argued for pulling our troops out of Iraq IMMEDIATELY. After all, says Paul, it was the Republican Party elected to get us out of Korea and, later, Vietman. It was the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS who got us into those messes! The roll-reversal is disgraceful for the Republican Party. Fact is that, as Paul pointed out in the debate, we're fretting over and planning wars with third-world nations with no army, no navy, and no air force. How does that espouse the small-government ideal of true conservatism? It doesn't.

The debate boiled down to nine neoconservatives and Ron Paul. The entire philosophy of the purpose of government supported by the other nine candidates was inherently contrary to everything Paul stood for in the same debate. Paul was the only candidate to come out strong against National ID cards, but a few others backtracked after his strong opposition. Paul was the only candidate to firmly come out against the war. Paul was the only candidate to oppose ANY regulation of the internet, and that includes shameful regulation of internet gambling that the other nine Republicans supported. Paul is the only candidate opposed to the Drug War, an issue especially close to me given my location in urban New York. I see and hear about the carnage resulting from drug prohibition every day, and yet the neocons would have government continue down the same anti-drug path, essentially equivalent to banging its own head repeatedly against a stone wall.

It's time to reign the neoconservatives and big government in. It's time to vote for Ron Paul! Huzzah :D

Watch Dr Paul's contributions to the debate here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Hfa7vT02lA