Are you voting for Obama or Romney? Allow me to persuade you otherwise. Vote Ron Paul.

I reach out to you today as a concerned U.S. citizen. I have not always been politically involved, but as my yoga instructor says, “We have to start somewhere, because if we don’t… we’ll get nowhere.” I understand that it is much easier to be apathetic about the political mess that exists today. But as Americans, we should value and treasure our freedoms because someone fought and/or died for us to enjoy them.

For those of you who know me, it is no secret I am a Ron Paul supporter. I do not consider myself to be anti-Obama or anti-Romney. However, I would like to address some of my concerns about the aforementioned candidates and the current political system.

I am going to start with Obama simply because he is the incumbent. First of all, I have one very good reason not to vote for Obama this coming November and it is Section 1021 of the NDAA. Obama is apparently okay with the indefinite detention of American citizens without a trial. He said that he wouldn’t use the power, but the truth is that he has already ordered the killing of American citizens without a trial before he signed this provision! That point aside, does he think it is wise to grant the executive branch (1 person) the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens in a foreign prison without a fair trial? I recall Obama speaking about the importance of habeas corpus and due process of law in the last election. Didn’t he speak about closing Guantanamo Bay, too? That’s still open. Didn’t he speak of bringing the troops home and ending our aggressive foreign policy? Well, the troops are home but why do we still have contractors there? Why did we build an embassy larger than Vatican City if our goal is to leave? Why did he expand wars? I think these are valid questions and hopefully they make you think twice before voting for him. If you think Romney is the answer to Obama, I beg to differ. Romney has openly endorsed an interventionist foreign policy and is on record saying that he too would have signed the NDAA.

Candidates on both sides lie through their teeth. The Democrats say they protect personal freedom, advocating for same sex marriage and free contraceptives for women. The Republicans say they protect entrepreneurship and economic freedom, advocating capitalism. But does either party act according to their supposed principles? Our president, which is a Democrat, signed indefinite detention into law. Let me get this straight, I can marry whoever I want and receive free contraceptives, but I can also be indefinitely detained if I am perceived as a threat. How is that protecting our personal freedom? It is almost like being offered an oxygen tank for your lungs in exchange. With regards to Republicans, many of them supported the bailouts despite the fact that they say they believe in free market capitalism. That is inconsistent with free market principles. In a true free market, government does not interfere at all. So if a corporation fails, you leave it alone and the market will correct itself. If you bail out the so-called “losers,” there is no end to the cost. And who is left with that cost? The taxpayers. It is better to hold people accountable for their actions because they will be more careful with their decisions. The “crony capitalism” or “corporatism” that we’ve seen in the past several years is not capitalism. Moreover, were you aware that Goldman Sachs is a major campaign contributor for both Obama and Romney? That’s probably a good indicator that the people making those types of decisions at Goldman Sachs really don’t see a difference between the two candidates, and will be okay with whoever wins. I wonder why that is.

So, where am I going with this? See, there’s this congressman from Texas named Ron Paul and I want you to look into him. Remember Obama’s admiration for the Constitution and peaceful foreign policy talk in the last election? Well, Ron Paul is the “Champion of the Constitution” and has been speaking out against our aggressive foreign policy for thirty years. If you like Romney’s praise about the private sector and free market, Ron Paul voted against all the bailouts, predicted the housing bubble collapse five years before it happened, and has been advocating a free market for the past thirty years. How can we know that Ron Paul is not just saying these things like the other two candidates? How can we know Ron Paul is different? At the risk of sounding redundant, Ron Paul has a consistent, pristine record backing him up.

So I ask you, are you voting for Obama because you’d drop dead before voting for a Republican? Are you voting for Romney because he can supposedly beat Obama? Are you choosing not to vote because you dislike both options? I am here today to tell you that you do not have to compromise yourself by voting for the person you perceive to be the lesser of two evils. We have a GREAT candidate. We have a genuine, authentic person running for office this presidential primary, which is probably a once in a lifetime event. Thanks to him, I was able to vote based off on my principles and beliefs. I hope you will look into him via YouTube, or even better, read his books “Revolution: A Manifesto,” “Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom,” “End the Fed,” and “The Case for Gold.”

I hope Ron Paul’s genuineness becomes apparent to you. Maybe you won’t agree with him on all issues, but I assure you he will make you rethink a few things. I truly believe that Ron Paul’s candor is a rarity and great start towards restoring our Republic. Give his ideas a chance. I did, and it revolutionized the way I see the world. This movement has been termed the “Ron Paul r3VOLution” because Ron Paul has the ability to cure the apathy felt by so many U.S. citizens nowadays. This revolution is rooted in love and propelled by ideas. This revolution emphasizes individual liberty. One exception to maximum individual liberty is when one individual infringes on another individual’s liberty. So, you cannot murder someone because, aside from it being wrong, you are infringing on that individual’s right to live. Ron Paul said it best, just because you endorse freedom does not mean you endorse what people do. I can accept that people have the freedom to make their own choices, whether I agree with them or not (e.g., drug abuse). However, just because I believe it is their right to make that choice does not mean I agree with their actions. I can advise them to stop, but at the end of the day I cannot force that person to listen to me. Free will is a human right and it is what distinguishes us from all other species on this planet. The fact that we have the freedom to make our own decisions is what makes our good behavior virtuous.

Finally, I want to briefly mention that I was very touched by something Ron Paul’s wife, Carol Paul, said the other day during a radio interview. She said that Ron Paul should be relaxing and enjoying his grandchildren at this point in his life. So, why is he running for president, enduring all the stress and drama that comes with running for office? According to her, this is a message that is engraved in his heart. Ron Paul is a firm believer that once you become aware of wrongdoing, you have a moral obligation to do something about it. That is exactly what he has done and continues to do. What will you do?

My RT interview on 4/30/12

Ron Paul's secret weapon - the delegates

Late night thoughts...

Some people say all is relative and nothing is absolute. But how does that make sense? Relativity, by definition, means “the absence of standards of absolute and universal application.” Saying all things are relative is admitting that there is at least one absolute, which is that all things are relative. This can easily get confusing. So, the point I want to get to is that I believe there are absolute truths. What kind of world would we live in if there were more than one truth? Perhaps what people might mean when they say all is relative is that perspective is relative. For example, there can be five individuals that witness the same exact car accident. However, their perception of the event will vary based on their perspective. What influences perspective? A lot of things do (e.g., experience, personality, culture, etc). So, if you ask those five individuals about the car accident, I guarantee that each one of them will recollect the story differently. Perhaps, one of the individuals was distracted and did not catch the first part of the car accident. Just because that individual did not see what happened at the beginning does not mean that it did not happen. There is the truth and then there is perspective. So, it could be said that perspective is relative.

Anyway, I am thinking about this because I had a long conversation with my friend Jon earlier about government’s role in our society. We disagree about a lot of things. But he asked me an interesting question. He said, “How do you know you are right and I am wrong?” Up until that point, I had not put thought into why I thought I was right and he was wrong. I am clear on why I believe these things, but I had never thought of why or how I was lead to believe my perspective is correct. It’s pretty obvious I fervidly support libertarian ideals and believe that limiting our government will help solve a lot of the problems we see today. It will not solve them immediately and it will not solve all of them, but it is a great start. Anyway, I realized that I do not know how to show people, like Jon, I am right. I talked about the way history shows us that large governments, fiat currency, empires, and private central banks (e.g., Federal Reserve) are ingredients for a collapse.

The truth is that there is no way to prove I am right to him if he cannot perceive what I perceive provided all the information I have gathered over the past few months. While I cannot prove to someone else that what I believe is the truth, I can most definitely know in my heart and in my being that it is. What do I mean by that? Well, I believe that individual liberty is God given. If God gave us freedom of choice, the government has no right to take it away. The government did not grant us our freedom. That is totally false. The government’s role is to protect our liberty. From there, life goes on. The government does not exist to appease all our problems (e.g., welfare, universal health care, financial aid, etc). Why are we trying to rid ourselves of the natural human struggle? I realize that some people are born into rich families and do not have to struggle with financial issues. I agree that money provides people with the opportunity to do what they please, providing a sense of freedom. But money is not everything and it most definitely does not make you happy. Just look at the rich reality TV stars who are famous for being rich. What is that about? Some of those people are very dense, not much substance there. I must say, though, some have good hearts but that does not take away from the fact that a large portion of their lives revolve around superficial thoughts and aspirations. I would much rather have a struggle or two and grow wiser if I had to choose. In fact, some of the most valuable lessons I have learned have been as a result of my struggles. Every struggle of mine has helped me become a better, stronger, wiser person. I would never take back any of those struggles. It is what makes me real. If we receive entitlements, there is no deeper satisfaction. How can you ever be confident and sure of your ability to do something great if everything is handed to you? Life is an everlasting struggle but that is not a bad thing. It’s just life. So, like they say, you cannot taste the sweet without the bitter.

Anyway, I always go off on tangents. But I would just like to say that I believe a free society is the best type of society. Some people mistake the United States for a democracy. Well, that is almost true because we are a type of democracy. We are a representative democracy. Therefore, we the people elect others to represent us. That is where the executive and legislative branches come in. Nowadays, people are apathetic about politics and our government is really not a representative democracy anymore. We have basically become an oligarchy, which is when a group of elite individuals have power over the government. So, that sucks. From my understanding, our Framers intended us to have a republic, a free society ruled by the law, not by people who can misinterpret the truth.

Anyway, back to my original thought about free societies. So, we may not agree with some choices people make (e.g., drugs, prostitution) but that does not mean that we will be forced to join in. Ron Paul said just because you endorse freedom does not mean you have to endorse what people do. I completely agree with the great doctor. We cannot start picking and choosing what we will allow in a free society. If people make bad choices, they will be accountable for those choices. You are free to do what you want as long as you do not infringe on another person's liberty. So, murder would definitely be considered infringing on another person's liberty, which is the right to their life. Moreover, if we allow the government to start regulating what individuals do in their private life, even if we agree with the government’s stance, it can always backfire. One day, the government might regulate you and you will not like it.