Each primary election cycle we are entertained by watching results come in from various states to see how "our guy" did. It has occurred to me in past elections, most past elections, that while we are all Americans, and basically all want the same things from our government, we seem to see things a lot differently.

How can it be that in a day when over twenty states held their primaries, and all of the members of those states heard and saw the same things from the candidates, that the results can vary so much from state to state? It happenned on "Super Tuesday", but it also happened on days when elections were held days apart. For example, Mike Huckabee won West Virginia and John McCain, days later, won Virginia, but was behind in the voting until northern Virginia results came in, so even within a given state voters are not of the same mind.

What do voters in Iowa see that causes them to choose Mike Huckabee and then only short weeks later neighboting Missouri choose John McCain who didn't finish in the top three in Iowa? Are voters so lazy that they allow the media to make up their minds for them who is going to be the leaders of their respective parties? Yes the same thing is happening in the Democrat party as well, although with fewer choices for the voters. While the Republicans showed three lead changes in their race, either Clinton or Obama have locked up first place in all of the Democrat races. Republicans watched the lead change from Iowa with Huckabee to New Hampshire voting mostly for McCain and then Wyoming and Michigan opting for Romney who went on to capture a seemingly insurmountable lead with Huckabee closest to him until Florida's primary where McCain took the lead and forced Romney to drop out, leaving only McCain, Huckabee and Ron Paul who had yet to finish above second place in any of the primaries or caucuses.

Not only are we as a people divided between states, but we are also divided within the same states and even in the same towns or cities, and probably within the same neighborhoods. I guess as long as there are more than two or three people in the same room there will be differences on how each candidate is viewed. I don't suppose we will ever again see a 49 state victory as we had when Ronald Reagan won re-election in 1984, and if some get their way, we may not see winning of individual states deciding the election, as there is now a big push for getting rid of the electoral college in favor of a straight popular vote, which would make the votes in fly-over country irrelevent. California, Texas, New York, Florida, and one or two other more heavily populated states would decide who our president would be. We could have been just finishing up eight years of Al Gore.

John McCain is willing to alow America's military to remain in the middle east for another hundred years. With the difference in the amount of time only, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee agree. Only Ron Paul offers a different answer.

America lacks the conviction to fight a war like a war should be fought. Look at some of the battles that occured in the Old Testament and compare them with the way wars are fought today. Most of those battles did not spare civilians, if they were in the war zone. The enemy was the enemy regardles of whether it was a man, woman or child.

Today children are being recruited to strap on explosives and walk among crowds to be detonated. What kind of mindset allows that to happen? What kind of mindset in those children allows them to be used, knowing they will soon die? Answer: It is the mindset of a group of people who have the conviction to win the war, but not the means. America, on the other hand, has the means to win a war, but not the conviction. There has never in history been a nation or empire with the means to more quickly win a war than we now have at our disposal. We have weapons that can kill the enemy but not harm the infrastructure, we have smart bombs and missles that can surgically take out a small target while leaving the surrounding area un-touched. We have the greatest technology in the history of the world at our disposal, but lack the conviction to use it. John McCain says he is willing to stay in Iraq for another hundred years if necessary. John McCain will not stay in Iraq or anywhere else for another hundred years, so that is worthless rhetoric

There is an alternative to either fighting a winning war that can end sooner rather than later and staying in Iraq for another hundred years.

Ron Paul has offered that alternative, and has been ridiculed for taking his position. He is maintaining that if we withdraw our troops, not only from Iraq, but from other nations around the world where fighting has not occured in fifty years or more, that we will not only probably not have any other attacks against this country, but we will have, here at home, the strongest, most well equipped military in the world. Who would dare attack such a strong nation?

There is only two alternatives that we can accept to our foreign intervention. One is that we go in to win and win at what ever the cost, or we allow those nations that have a quarrel among themselves to solve their own problems. George Washington told his America to avoid foreign entanglements. That advice is as timely today as it was in 1789.

If an identifiable nation attacks us, we should be prepared to wipe that nation off of the face of the earth. If some loose cannons from a region that are not identified with a country attack us, we should deal with them the same way we deal with a nation who attacks us; find them and wipe them off of the face of the earth. But to attack a nation who has no national connection with those who carried out the attack on 9/11 makes no sense whatever. That is what we did in Iraq.

It's time to bring the troops home from Iraq. It's time to bring the troops home from Japan, Germany, France, Bosnia, Korea, and even Afghanastan, as well as anyplace else we have troops stationed in this world. Let's have our troops protect our borders for a change, not the borders of countries who would just as soon see us all dead.

An article in Reuters asks "How can Republicans win the presidency now?" I think that is a valid question to ask. We have seen huge turnouts for Democrat primaries and caucuses and only moderate turnout in Republican contests. Curiously though, in the article comparisons are made between McCain, Obama and Hillary as to who stood the best chance of winning, and oddly enough, McCain has a slight lead.

With that thought in mind, I would like to pose the question again, How can Republicans win the presidency in November? With either Hillary or Obama on the Democrat ballot and McCain on the Republican ballot, there is only a choice of two Democrats. If Romney is the Republican choice there is at least a part Republican in the race, but he wasn't figured the guy with a chance to win, McCain was.

Again, can Republicans win in November? Can they win with McCain, and if so isn't that just the same as Obama or Hillary? Can Romney win? Will Huckabee be in it long enough to be at the convention? How about Guliani, is he still in contention? I doubt it.

So it looks like Republicans won't win in November, since if McCain is their candidate and wins, Republicans lose, and if Romney, Guliani, or Huckabee is the candidate they won't win, so the "Democrat for real" candidate wins. Either way its just business as usual in Washington regardless of who wins in that scenario.

There is one other possibility, however remote, that the Republicans might just win, and that is if Ron Paul is their nominee in November. Here's a guy who real conservative Republicans like because of his position regarding the Constitution. Moderate Democrats also like him because of his position on our being in Iraq. Independents like him for the very reason they are Independents, that the major parties have failed to distinguish themselves from one another and spend like drunken sailors.

Because of the lack of media coverage on his positions, it is unlikely that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination, and the biggest fear Republican party leaders should have is that Ron Paul decides to run as a third party candidate, which right now he says he is not inclined to do. He did not completely rule out that possibility, but says it is unlikely.

But if Republicans do fear a Ron Paul third party move, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the country to keep him on the team, and then as team leader?

Republicans' biggest complaint about Ron Paul is his stance on the war in Iraq, and his insistance on bringing the troops home, as well as those stationed around the world in places we haven't fought in for more than 50 years. His position may be a lot different from what we have all grown up with, that is American occupation of contries we have conquered, but since our image has gone into the dumper around the world, wouldn't it be worth a try? Remember what Einstein said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

If Ron Paul were to be the nominee of the Republican party, and he were to lose, how would that be different from winning with McCain or losing with Huckabee or Romney? But...if he were to win we may find ourselves on the way back to a Constitutional Republic.

Do you want a president who tells you what you want to hear today, then tells another audience another thing tomorrow, and who said something entirely different to another crowd yesterday? I don't!

Wouldn't you rather have a president who said the same thing yesterday as he is saying today and will in all likelyhood say the same thing tomorrow, regardless of who is listening. I know I would feel a whole lot more secure with a president who, when speaking to the leaders of other nations, when he said something, they knew he meant it. I think Ronald Reagan and Jack Kennedy were like that, and I think Ron Paul is like that as well. No he is not the forceful speaker that either of the two men above were, but it is not how he says it but what he says that is important to me, and I think it would be to other national leaders as well.

We have a big decision, as Republicans, in our upcoming primaries. We have two conservative candidates, one in Ron Paul and one half each in Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Unfortunately the Democrats now have a choice of six candidates, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, McCain and Guliani. I am afraid that come November they will have a choice between only two, with no Republican in the race.

That's where we come in! We can decide whether we want to work to get a Republican on the ballot in November or just settle for two Democrats. Then we must decide whether we want just a half Republican or a full fledged one. Comes down to choices, there is really only one. Kind of makes our job a little easier, doesn't it?

Liberals think we spend too much money on our military and not enough for welfare here at home.

The 2008 federal budget gives quite a different picture. As in past years, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has a budget that is substantially larger than the Department of Defense (DoD).

Even while we are at war, so to speak, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the DoD budget is over $100 billion less than HHS. That amount in itself is more than any other cabinet department has for a total budget, with no other departments exceeding $100 billion.

The HHS budget for 2008 is an astonishing $700 billion, while Defense gets "only" $586 billion.

It is quite plain from the budget figures, that we are spending too much on welfare here at home, and maybe not enough on building our military strength.

It becomes pretty clear how this country could survive without an income tax when you consider how much waste there is in just HHS, but ad the Department of Education ($58.6 billion), Homeland Security ($43.2 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($32 billion), Environmental Protective Agency ($7.8 billion), Department of Labor ($52.3 billion), Department of Agriculture ($89 billion), and Department of Energy ($23 billion), it's like old Ev Dirksen used to say, "a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there, pretty soon your talking about real money". For those of you not old enough to remember, Everett Dirksen was a Republican senator from Illinois.

For those critics of Ron Paul's plan to eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing, I would ask you to consider the numbers above, and then claim that we could not cut back government to a level that it was in 1997.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/

Have you noticed that some of the big guns in the Republican race are starting to sound like Ron Paul? McCain is saying that spending is out of control, Huckabee is trying to convince Republicans that he is not for birthright citizenship, and Romney is declaring that Washington is broken.

Why would Republican voters want to settle for counterfeit when the genuine article is available? Ron Paul has always known that spending is out of control in Washington, and wants to clarify the fourteenth amendment so that it is clear that it was the children of those brought into this country as slaves, not children of illegal aliens who snuck into this country in violation of our law, who were to be given birthright citizenship. His voting record is proof that he has known for a long time that Washington is broken, but it can be fixed.

Dr. Paul knows that if we get our government pared back to the size it was when Bill Clinton was president in 1997 that we could eliminate entirely, the federal income tax. Government at that time was too big, so there is an incentive to cut it back even further, thereby reducing our budget deficit and perhaps even showing a budget surplus.

Mike Huckabee wants to replace the income tax with a "23%" fair tax on consumer goods. That is in itself a lie, since what the fair tax people propose is in reality a 30% tax. Either way, unless the 16th amendment is first repealed, and the income tax buried, proposing a new way of taxing could only end up as an additional way of taxing. Ron Paul wants first, to repeal the 16th amendment, then end the income, inheritance, and capital gains taxes, abolish the IRS, the single biggest employer in the country, and letting them find jobs in the private sector that would grow by leaps and bounds without the constraints of taxes.

If you want the real deal, vote for Ron Paul. If you are willing to accept counterfeit you have McCain, Huckabee, Romney, or even Guliani or Thompson. Duncan Hunter is real too. How about a Paul/Hunter ticket for 2008.

A guy goes into a bar, finds a seat next to a pretty young thing, buys her a drink and strikes up a conversation. Over time he asks if she would be willing to go back to his hotel and spend the night with him for $5000. After giving it a little thought, and this seemed like such a nice guy, she agrees. The man then asked if she would be willing to spend the night with him for ten dollars instead of the $5000. She asked him, what do you think I am anyway? He responded, I thought we already established that, now we are just negotiating the price.

John McCain says his and Kennedy's failed plan to allow illegals to remain in this country after paying a $5000 fee/fine/whatever and to just move to the back of the line and wait their turn to apply for citizenship is not amnesty. They say it is not amnesty, and the gal above says she is not a hooker either, but the difference between our fictional young lady being a paid prostitute and an illegal alien given amnesty is just the difference in the price paid, according to McCain. If you allow an illegal to stay in this country at a fee of say ten dollars, instead of the $5000 stipulated by McCain and Kennedy, would they call it amnesty?

What illegal alien would not be willing to stay in this country for such a small fee (or for that matter $5000).

If Dan Quayle was given fits for his spelling of potato as "P-O-T-A-T-O-E", isn't  McCain's spelling of A-M-N-E-S-T-Y wrong because it has a $5000 tag with it?

If you had a good friend who you respected for his families history, and he had neighbors who didn't like him for the same reasons, would you first: give your friend things that he needed, such as a means to protect himself from his enemies? and then second: give his neighbors who didn't like him two to three times more of what you gave him? Should you then be able to tell your friend that he should not defend himself or protect his property? 

If you did this, would you expect that your friend would be able to adequately defend himself against those who didn't like him?

If you had the opportunity to take away from your friends enemies all that you have been giving them, but at the same time be required to take also from your friend the one half to one third of what his enemies had received, and then left them alone to resolve their differences, would you do it?

If you did, wouldn't that make your friend better off against his enemies than when they were receiving much more than he was?

If your friend was Israel, and his enemies were all of his neighboring states, would you be considered anti-semite?

If there was a serious health problem that was killing people not only in America, but around the world, and you knew the cause of that illness, would you shut your mouth about the cause, or would you do your best to let everyone know what the cause was? If the health problem was caused by a behavior, such as smoking or alcohol consumption, wouldn't you do your best to help quell the problem.

What about if it were not alcohol or tobacco that was the cause of the problem, but something of a more politically protected cause, such as homosexual behavior?

Is there really anybody today who doesn't believe that the AIDS virus and HIV are products of Homosexual lifestyles? Don't even those in the homosexual community know that their behavior may result in HIV/AIDS?

If you are in a position of knowledge, such as a medical doctor, and you inform those who you can reach about this problem, and it's cause, are you a "homophobe"?

If you were put in the position of voting to declare a national holiday and the person you were naming this holiday for had been accused by the director of the FBI of being a communist sympathizer, that he had been found to be an adulterer, that he was accused by a fellow worker of having made "passes" at him, and that he plagiarized his doctoral dissertation, how would you vote.

If this man considered himself a Marxist and believed that capitalism was wrong because "it has left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged small hearted men to become cold and conscienceless."

Would you put this man's name on the same level as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln?

If the man in question was black, and you voted against this holiday, should you be considered racist, in spite of the above mentioned facts?