Ron Paul Supporters Keep Faith Even After He’s Out

Though Texas congressman, Ron Paul’s presidential journey has technically come to an end this election, Dr. Paul’s legacy lives on through the spirit of thousands of supporters who have joined in on what is known as the “Ron Paul Revolution.”

“He is one of my heroes and he gives me hope that one day we might actually see civil liberties restored in America,” says Jonathan Dwyer of New York.

The single, most important reason why Dwyer became interested in politics was because of Dr. Paul.

“I always thought politicians were corrupt to some degree and didn’t represent the wants and needs of Americans; that they only ran to gain power or something of that nature,” said Dwyer, who is studying business management at State University of New York: Oneonta. “Ron Paul showed me that there are people out there fighting and struggling to help the people, to regain freedom, to restore the Constitution. He is a modern day forefather. He believes Americans should have the right to do what they want, when they want as long as they’re not hurting anyone.”

Mitt Romney may be the official Republican nominee, but Ron Paul’s name certainly won’t be absent on voter’s ballots in November.

Adrienne Wenner, a freelance photographer and journalist from PA, says she will be writing in Paul’s name on the ballot in November. “In short—-The president is supposed to adhere to the Constitution, not their personal beliefs. I think if you believe in Ron Paul, then you should be writing him in instead of choosing a mainstream candidate or not voting at all,” she says.

Former marine from New Jersey, Andrew Parker, also plans to write in Paul’s name.

“A small part of me says ‘vote for Gary Johnson'—reason being he will be the next face of the Libertarian movement, I predict,” he says. “And a SUPER tiny small part says ‘vote for Romney’—reason being I feel he will spend a tad less than Obama. But in the end, I know I’m writing in Ron Paul.”

Twenty-four-year-old Libertarian policy analyst and activist, Julie Borowski, says she is okay with voters like Wenner and Parker pledging to write in Paul’s name.

“I assume that most understand that a write in candidate cannot possibly win,” Borowski said. “It is more to show a message that we do not like the other choices on the ballot. I believe everyone should vote with their conscience.”

Many fans, like Dwyer, have only recently gained knowledge of Paul’s campaign for liberty though Paul has been active in politics since 1971.

Paul, who formerly ran for president as Libertarian in 1988, stayed true to his libertarian roots when he ran for president as Republican in 2008, and this year, in 2012.

“I do believe that it was a good thing for Ron Paul to run as a Republican,” Borowski said. “He got far more national media and attention than any Libertarian Party candidate has even gotten. I do believe that more libertarian minded people should run as Republicans if they want to get elected.”

Though Paul did gain a lot more promotion than he most likely would of as running third-party, he still didn’t gain as much media as he deserved, according to both Dwyer and Borowski.

Dwyer argues: “The media did not give Ron Paul 5% of the coverage it gave to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and the rest of the Republican nominees,” said Dwyer. “Ron Paul wasn’t given a fair chance in the GOP. He was given less time to answer questions during Republican debates, the GOP blatantly cheated him out of votes and recognition, they changed rules so he wouldn’t be allowed to speak at the RNC, the states with more Ron Paul delegates were placed in the back of the Convention to help block them out. He won the state of Maine yet they took more than half his delegates away. When they ‘voted’ on the rule change of switching the number of states needed to be won from six to eight, they clearly did it to keep Ron Paul off stage and out of the public eye. The vote was scripted…. Of the major news networks covering the election and campaigns, they had a combined ONE reporter who covered Ron Paul. They would come up with headlines such as ‘Where is Ron Paul?’ All of this while Ron Paul was campaigning around the country in front of thousands of people at each stop he made. I went to his speech at Cornell University and there were easily over 5000 people in attendance.”

Borowski, who has met Paul six or seven times, says that, “The Republican Party's treatment of Ron Paul is frustrating. It makes the Republican Party look like a closed tent. It is clear that they are scared of new ideas infiltrating the party.”

Dwyer agrees, and has stated that, “The Republican Party lost at all credibility with this year’s handling of the nomination process. I do not believe they have the interests of every day Americans at heart and are more concerned with keep the status quo then seeing real change.”

Americans nationwide are becoming annoyed with both the Democrat and Republican parties. However, the presidential race remains tight with Romney leading at 50% to Obama at 47%.

Media still fails to mention other third-party candidates still in the running, like Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Roseanne Barr, and Thomas Hoefling, who are all on the official ballot in California.

“Ron Paul is against the Federal Reserve, against the wars, against corporatism, and against all the laws/agencies like the NDAA, Patriot Act, HR 347, TSA, etc., that have stripped civil liberties in recent years,” Dwyer said. “When it comes to these policies, Romney and Obama agree. Therefore Americans aren’t even given a real choice.”

LittleMissLibertarian
Miranda Pagan

An 11 year war for bogus accusations

-Restorative justice could've saved thousands of U.S. troops and innocent Iraqi lives-

On March 20, 2003, The United States officially went to war with Iraq for three reasons, according to at the time president, George W. Bush: Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, Iraq supposedly had weapons of mass destruction, and because Hussein allegedly supported terrorism with links to al Qaeda.

Bush’s arguments for the war on Iraq were not justified in my opinion.

The Middle Eastern country never presented an actual threat of danger to the United States. 

“..Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons, and diseases, and gases, and atomic weapons.”
George W. Bush, October 7, 2002 

Hussein ruthlessly dictated Iraq as president for more than 30 years but never attempted to dictate America. Numerous dictators, such as al Qaeda aid Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea, are found throughout the world. It is not the United State’s moral responsibility to conquer such dictators and shape their societies into whichever way they please. The U.S. has done such in Iraq throughout 11 years of war, and history is repeating today with Afghanistan. With active U.S. military on base in different countries, America has become a dictator to less powerful regions including the Middle East. American troop’s killing sprees have killed thousands. It’s a bit hypocritical in my point of view.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
George W. Bush, March 17, 2003

Twenty-six countries are suspected to occupy weapons of mass destruction of either nuclear, biological, or chemical composition. Does this mean America should go to war to obtain such weapons? Of course not. Why does America hold the power to decide which countries can possess weapons of mass destruction? Nations beside our own need forms of protection as well. Bush was persistent that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction but none were ever found. Apparently the CIA had misinformation. Figures.

"We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."    
George W. Bush, February 8, 2003

The U.S. Department of State recognizes 51 terrorist organizations. No evidence ever linked Hussein to al Qaeda. Though alleged at the time, Hussein was not associated with the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. Bush tried to justify the Iraq war with its al Qaeda connections even though the terrorist group is known to have cells worldwide. He stated later in September of 2003 that, “We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."

Article Four, Section Four of the Constitution requires the U.S.’s protection of America against invasion. The horrific crimes of 9/11 needed not to go unpunished, however, retaliation was dealt with in the wrong way. Albert Einstein once said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” You can’t solve terrorism with more terrorism.

America needs to stop taking actions that provoke terrorism. Rather than a widespread attack on Iraq; a country often forgotten by Americans to also inhabit faultless men, women, and children, the U.S. should of sought restorative justice from al Qaeda establisher, Osama bin Laden. 

LittleMissLibertarian
Miranda Pagan

Obama fails to deliver and Romney will probably never have the chance to… How about Gary Johnson?

When Mr. "Change" has broken almost all promises, and the other candidate is straight up Mr. Wishy-Washy, is third-party the way to vote?


Obama promised change when elected in 2008, and we’ve gotten some, but not necessarily the good kind. 

To kick off the Democratic National Convention last week, our national debt officially topped $16 trillion on the 4th. When running in 2008, Obama promised to cut the US’s national debt in half but rather has exceeded it by $5 trillion. 

We’ve had 42 consecutive months of unemployment over 8 percent since President Obama has taken office. College tuition has also increased 25 percent. What’s the point of going to college now that the chances of finding a job that will make enough to pay back student loans is slim?

Amendments five through eight remain broken by Obama’s decision to keep Guantanamo Bay open. Despite promises to shut down the detention camp, governments’ abuse of authority remains at Guantanamo and is exemplified by the unconstitutional, cruel and unusual torture of held suspected terrorists and their denial of a fair trial.

Do I even need to mention the war in Afghanistan that both Obama and Romney want to keep troops in until at least 2014? Our government needs to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries and stop dictating and controlling how they should be ran. It’s unnecessary, it’s expensive, it’s killing Americans as well as innocent victims, and it’s creating enemies when we could instead develop peace through free trade. Let’s focus on the re-growth of our own country rather then aiding others’ and let’s remove all troops from all 150 non-threat countries where stationed.

Obama promised not to harass medical marijuana providers in 2008 yet more than 60 federal indictments have resulted from raids on nearly 200 dispensaries and growers during his term. 

Though I can talk all day on the failed promises and negative impacts from Obama, I will give our current president props for one good thing that has come out of these last three and a half years with him in charge.

Obama has openly endorsed same-sex marriage and has fought hard for the equal rights of LGBT Americans and for that, I am appreciative. Some accomplishments on the issue include the repeal of the former “Don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy, the ban of discrimination in the workplace based on gender identity, and the extension of hospital visitation and decision making rights to same-sex couples. Though he hasn’t federally legalized gay marriage, Obama has left the issue up to the states.

However, the bad outweighs the good. 

Americans have allowed President Barack Obama almost four years to give our country the change it so much needs yet he has been unsuccessful for the most part.

But can the 2012 GOP nominee, Mitt Romney, fix the mess that Obama has bred? Probably not. 

Romney is an unstable vote and can’t be trusted. He has shifted his political stances on multiple occasions on issues including abortion, immigration, gun control, bailouts, and tax cuts. Like Obama, Romney has gone back on his word several times while being the former Governor of Massachusetts.

Massachusetts state spending increased 24 percent in three years under Romney and $500 million in fees were raised in 2003 despite his promise not to raise taxes. Yet Romney has promised that if elected the next president, he would cut tax rates 20 percent lower than Bush did. It’s hard to trust such a statement from Romney when you take into account his record.

Romney’s campaign hasn’t been focused at all enough on the real issues of America but rather on the fact that he is not Obama. 

Obama’s campaign hasn’t been too great either. He too has ignored focus on crucial issues and has shifted almost all of attention on women’s rights--specifically abortion, LGBT equality, and healthcare. Though they are important issues to be discussed, they should not be the only. 

Both Obama and Romney failed to specifically address- and did great jobs avoiding- some of America’s pressing issues such as financial reform and the national debt, immigration, “Romneycare,” social security, and the war with Afghanistan. 

The race is close with Obama at 49 percent and Romney at 48. We all know that America is run by a two-party political system, but what do we do when the republican and democrat nominees are both complete messes? 

Guilt would eat me away if I voted for either one of the two head candidates running in the 2012 election. Since Ron Paul is no longer in the race, I have decided to vote for third-party Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson on November 6th 2012.  

I agree with Johnson on most issues and although voting for him will not do much, I refuse to vote for Romney and I refuse to vote for Obama. 

Johnson is the only candidate who will immediately bring troops home from Afghanistan, cut military spending by 43 percent, veto all bailouts, work to legalize marijuana, submit a balanced budget by 2013, repeal the Patriot Act, audit the Federal Reserve, end the Department of Education, simplify and promote immigration, keep the internet free and safe, and to take the government completely out of the bedroom by striving to legalize gay marriage.

LittleMissLibertarian
Miranda Pagan

California’s Medical Marijuana Law & The Federal Government’s Intervention

The discussion of marijuana in the United States is a heated debated. Almost everyone has a stance on the issue, whether being in support or opposition of medical marijuana and the recreational use of the plant. 

Three lawsuits have recently been filed to medical marijuana dispensaries in California. Over 60 dispensaries in just two cities of Orange County have received warning letters threatening criminal charges if not shut down. Though California law approved medical marijuana in 1996, Feds claim states law is being taken advantage of by crooked doctors who do not properly diagnose patients with the recommendation. It is believed that the recommendations are rather being sold to anyone who desires a medical marijuana prescription.

One clinic in LA County, Happy Medical, was shut down after an undercover producer exposed that the recommendation was too easily obtained. Turns out that the ‘doctors’ seeing the patients were actually, no real doctors at all. Rather, the doctors performing the examinations were physical therapists signing off for the real doctor, Dr. James A. Hartleroad, 67 miles away from the clinic. Hartleroad never once saw a patient and pleads his case saying that his physician assistants perform the examination for him. The scandal has nullified thousands of medical marijuana patient’s recommendations. 

It’s widely known how simple it is to receive approval for medical marijuana in California. We’ve all seen the billboards on the busy freeways offering recommendations for low prices. I predict that the federal government will continue to crack down on dispensaries and clinics in California. The question is, should they?

The Declaration of Independence grants American’s their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Every person’s pursuit of happiness is different. Man should be free to do whatever he desires, eat what he wants, drink what he pleases, and smoke whatever tickles his fancy as long as it does not affect the health and well being of another person. In support of marijuana or not, the government should not have that much power to decipher what man can and cannot do on his own spare time. Allowing the government to uphold these laws takes away our personal freedom. 

I say that it’s time marijuana is federally legalized, regulated, and taxed. Harvard professor Jeffrey A. Miron has done a study showing that the combined savings and tax revenue of the legal plant can bring in as much as $10 to $14 billion a year. Now wouldn’t that help solve our overcrowded jails and prisons as well as assisting our National Debt of $16 trillion plus? I think yes.

LittleMissLibertarian
Miranda Pagan